Rebel2000-Sigma28-105f2.8 -dissapointed! Other lens maybe?
Beame02
(WardCheese) writes:
>It works best of
>you use a slightly longer focal length lens and sit several feet from the
>subject. If you get too close, the flash will wash out all the color.
WardCheese,
Which (good non expencive) <<longer focal length lens>> whould you recommend? I
chose the Sigma is because the big aperture. ..AND the price was nice. Just
$198. at B&H.
<< But NEVER give up after just one roll!
Good luck. Keep your chin up! >>
Thank you!
All the best,
S. Fried
Robert Alan Siegel
lenses rate about 4, good lenses in the 3's. The Sigma 28-70 2.8 rates
3.5, the Canon zooms rate in the 3's in general. You have to pay more and
perhaps give up some of the zoom range to get better images. If you cannot
afford the better zooms, start with a high quality single focal length lens
such as a 35 or 50mm. If you never want larger than 4X6 it probably
doesn't matter but even at 8X10 there is a huge difference.
Beame02 wrote in message <19990502040417...@ngol08.aol.com>...
Beame02
<rasi...@tiac.net> writes:
>Photodo rates the Sigma 28-105 an MTF of 2.4, which is quite poor. Superb
>lenses rate about 4, good lenses in the 3's. The Sigma 28-70 2.8 rates
>3.5, the Canon zooms rate in the 3's in general. You have to pay more and
>perhaps give up some of the zoom range to get better images.
Robert,
Your comment here gives me good advice. Where did you get the rates? Is there
any web site that gives rates?
Robert Alan Siegel
Beame02 wrote in message <19990502101838...@ngol06.aol.com>...
dan edwards
Beame02 wrote in message <19990502040417...@ngol08.aol.com>...
>In article <19990430204117...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
wardc...@aol.com
>(WardCheese) writes:
>
>>It works best of
>>you use a slightly longer focal length lens and sit several feet from the
>>subject. If you get too close, the flash will wash out all the color.
>
>WardCheese,
>
>Which (good non expencive) <<longer focal length lens>> whould you
recommend? I
>chose the Sigma is because the big aperture. ..AND the price was nice. Just
>$198. at B&H.
Sam:
Does the Rebel 2000 have flash exposure compensation?
-dan
ja...@my-dejanews.com
wrong with the Rebel 2000's flash for night scene. All of my night photos
came out with wonderful exposure, brilliant balanced colors. If all I do are
night scene, I would have kept this camera.
The problem is that the Rebel 2000's meter seems to be horribly out of sync
with any day time lighting condition, no matter how ideal, and all of my day
time photos, all five rolls with all different films, ranging from Royal Gold
to Fuji, turned out to be tragically bad. I know that if I do exposure
compensation for each and every day time shot, I will still get great photo
from my Cannon 28mm 2.8 lens, but what's the point of getting this particular
camera for doing that and what is the point of having a 35-segment meter that
requires all day time shots, no matter how straight forward, to be manually
exposure compensated?
In article <7gjtv9$sn0$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
dan edwards
ja...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7gkpmn$cu7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>No flash exposure compensation, but based on my experience, there is
nothing
>wrong with the Rebel 2000's flash for night scene.
My query to Sam about flash exposure compensation was in respect to his
claim "If you get too close, the flash will wash out all the color." For
those who insist on using flash I recommend finding one's own ideal flash
exposure rating for flash/film.
>The problem is that the Rebel 2000's meter seems to be horribly out of sync
>with any day time lighting condition, no matter how ideal, and all of my
day
>time photos, all five rolls with all different films, ranging from Royal
Gold
>to Fuji, turned out to be tragically bad.
Assuming no operator error then I'd say the camera (your particular example)
was broken. Many folks use the R2K and supposedly get great shots.
[snip]
>camera for doing that and what is the point of having a 35-segment meter
that
Besides the marketing aspects, the new metering system fits the new AF
sensor pattern better. Likely the combination will be exploited even more
with the predicted Elan II replacement.
-dan
Beame02
>Photodo rates the Sigma 28-105 an MTF of 2.4, which is quite poor. Superb
>lenses rate about 4, good lenses in the 3's. The Sigma 28-70 2.8 rates
>3.5, the Canon zooms rate in the 3's in general. You have to pay more and
>perhaps give up some of the zoom range to get better images. If you cannot
>afford the better zooms, start with a high quality single focal length lens
>such as a 35 or 50mm.
hi Robert,
After reading and checking the lens rating. I AM returning the Sigma 28-105mm
2.8-4. I am now looking for a good superb portrait lens. I have the choice of
these to, and I want to hear from all you fellows what you think about them,
and which would be your choice:
a. Canon 100/2.8 Macro
b. Sigma Macro 105/2.8 EX
Nicholas Mace
is a good choice. If you ever want to take a shot of more than a couple
of people in a medium sized room, you'll be stuck. Your lens will simply
be too long. Try it out with your Sigma zoom set at the long end and see
how your compositions are limited. IMO, you should return the Sigma for
the Canon 28-105 USM and have done. You will still have the 105 focal
length at an aperture of 4.5, which isn't too bad.
Nick.
Mr Ben Bo
>No flash exposure compensation, but based on my experience, there is nothing
>wrong with the Rebel 2000's flash for night scene. All of my night photos
>came out with wonderful exposure, brilliant balanced colors. If all I do are
>night scene, I would have kept this camera.
>
>The problem is that the Rebel 2000's meter seems to be horribly out of sync
>with any day time lighting condition, no matter how ideal, and all of my day
>time photos, all five rolls with all different films, ranging from Royal Gold
>to Fuji, turned out to be tragically bad. I know that if I do exposure
>compensation for each and every day time shot, I will still get great photo
>from my Cannon 28mm 2.8 lens, but what's the point of getting this particular
>camera for doing that and what is the point of having a 35-segment meter that
>requires all day time shots, no matter how straight forward, to be manually
>exposure compensated?
This guy does have a valid point !
However i feel he should maybe persevere a little longer, And
double/trebal check that it is definitely the camera that is at fault
!
Rod
problem like the one frequently written about on the EOS 3 ?????
FareTower
> You will still have the 105 focal
>length at an aperture of 4.5, which isn't too bad.
if it is OK me bugging in: Wouldn't a 105mm be for portarit? Wouldn't it be
much better to have a portrait taken with a big aperture oppening?
cheers, S.
FareTower
(Beame02) writes:
>Sigma Macro 105/2.8 EX
I am thinking of this lens. Is it really good?
cheers, S.
Nicholas Mace
control over background blur. My point was, I wouldn't want a 105 mm
lens as my only lens; it simply isn't versatile enough. I was trying to
suggest that with the Canon zoom, you get 4.5 at the long end, which is
maybe a stop and a third slower than a 2.8, and while not great is
certainly way better than any P&S out there and would still be useful
for portraits.
Nick.
Chieh Cheng
> After reading and checking the lens rating. I AM returning the Sigma 28-105mm
> 2.8-4. I am now looking for a good superb portrait lens. I have the choice of
> these to, and I want to hear from all you fellows what you think about them,
> and which would be your choice:
> a. Canon 100/2.8 Macro
> b. Sigma Macro 105/2.8 EX
To me the Sigma 28-105 f/2.8-4 is a superb portrait lens. It is quite soft and
provide a very pleasing portrait effect.
I also have the Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro. It is very sharp. Thus, to me makes a
poor portrait lens, because it shows all imperfection of the skin.
I have a review of both lens on my site.
--
CC
--
http://www.worm-hole.net/members/VIG/
ann
>
>In article <7ghjls$t...@news-central.tiac.net>, "Robert Alan Siegel"
><rasi...@tiac.net> writes:
>
>>Photodo rates the Sigma 28-105 an MTF of 2.4, which is quite poor. Superb
>>lenses rate about 4, good lenses in the 3's. The Sigma 28-70 2.8 rates
>>3.5, the Canon zooms rate in the 3's in general. You have to pay more and
>>perhaps give up some of the zoom range to get better images. If you cannot
>>afford the better zooms, start with a high quality single focal length lens
>>such as a 35 or 50mm.
>
>hi Robert,
>
>2.8-4. I am now looking for a good superb portrait lens. I have the choice of
>these to, and I want to hear from all you fellows what you think about them,
>and which would be your choice:
> a. Canon 100/2.8 Macro
> b. Sigma Macro 105/2.8 EX
>
> S. Fried
S Fried,
From my experience the 100 2.8 from Canon is rather slow in auto focus.
However, I have a feeling that you should go with Canon so you don't regret
getting a third party lens. If you can afford it, get the 70-200L it is very
good for socail events where you have to zoom in, fast auto-focus for kids
that run around, tight head shots without being to close to the subject. Great
with 1.4x extender for larger animals.
Best Regards,
Ann
--
Ann Q. Lee
http://carcassi.eng.uci.edu/intropictures.htm
FareTower
writes:
>To me the Sigma 28-105 f/2.8-4 is a superb portrait lens. It is quite soft
>and
>provide a very pleasing portrait effect.
At 105 not much aperture left. I am hesitating after reading about this lens. I
would rather go for something more dedicative to portrait.
>
>I also have the Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro. It is very sharp. Thus, to me makes a
>poor portrait lens, because it shows all imperfection of the skin.
I can always add a filter. No?
cheers, S.
FareTower
>Of course, f/2 or 2.8 would be better for portraits, giving yuou more
>control over background blur. My point was, I wouldn't want a 105 mm
>lens as my only lens; it simply isn't versatile enough. I was trying to
>suggest that with the Canon zoom, you get 4.5 at the long end, which is
>maybe a stop and a third slower than a 2.8, and while not great is
>certainly way better than any P&S out there and would still be useful
>for portraits.
I got ya. Now I have in question the Canon (not L) 85mm f1.8 above the Sigma
105mm f2.8 MACRO. Which would be a better choice? This is a brand name
'Canon'.. The Sigma has Macro .. The Canon has 1.8.. The Sigma is EX which I
guess compares to the 'L' series of Canon. The Sigma is 105mm, so I can take up
more of the facial without having to step much forward. Which would be a better
choice? It is only $40 a difference between the Canon and Sigma. Sigma is more.
The money shouldnt a factor here.
cheers, S.
Chieh Cheng
> At 105 not much aperture left. I am hesitating after reading about this lens.
> I would rather go for something more dedicative to portrait.
Obviously, if you are planning on doing a lot of portrait work, a dedicated
portrait is the way to go.
> >I also have the Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro. It is very sharp. Thus, to me makes a
> >poor portrait lens, because it shows all imperfection of the skin.
>
> I can always add a filter. No?
Yes, if you always want a soft-focus effect. You can't use a soft focus filter
when you want a more realistic portrait. But I guess you can always get your
model to use a lot of make-up.
CC
--
http://members.tripod.com/~chiehcheng/
Mr Ben Bo
>In article <19990504144519...@ngol05.aol.com>, bea...@aol.com
>(Beame02) writes:
>
>>Sigma Macro 105/2.8 EX
>
>I am thinking of this lens. Is it really good?
>
>cheers, S.
I have this lens as well as the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 D And i have used it
MANY times with some outstanding results, The sigma 105mm EX macro is
as sharp a lens as you will find most anywhere !
Since i got the Nikon 105mm micro i tend to use it the most, However i
do still use the Sigma from time to time and find it can still in some
circumstances match my nikon 105mm micro !
Here's what i think of it when compared to my nikon,
Sharpness is well up there with the nikon (It's not quite as sharp,
But it ain't far behind my nikon 105mm micro !!!),
The contrast of the sigma is not as good as what my nikon can produce,
But it is still more than acceptable !
Also i find that the Nikon is able to produce images with more "Zip"
to the colors, But again the sigma produces colors that are more than
acceptable,
And lastly on to build quality, Well as you would expect the Nikon
wins here again, But yet again i have to admit that the build quality
of the sigma is quite good and should provide years of service if
treated with a little respect (Like most good quality lenses should
be)
The only Negative thing i have to say about this lens is that it ain't
too good at "Flare Control", But this can most times be easily avoided
if paying attention well enough !
Although in the above text it seems that the Nikon wins on all
subjects, We have to remember that the Sigma is less than half the
price of the Nikon and as such one would hope that the Nikon
"Out-Performs" the Sigma (Which it does), But for the money that is
involved between the prices of these lenses, I have to admit that i do
NOT think that the Nikon is twice as good as the Sigma even though it
is twice the price of the Sigma !!!
Please Note !!!
I only use these two lenses for Macro work, And as such i am not able
to comment on there performance when used for any other forms of
photography !!!
For the money the Sigma is a really "Bonza" Macro lens !!!
Hope this helps you a little !
Beame02
>I also have the Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro. It is very sharp. Thus, to me makes a
>poor portrait lens, because it shows all imperfection of the skin.
Nick,
What are you using it for?
All the best,
S. Fried
Beame02
In article <372F4AF0...@usc.edu>, Nicholas Mace <ma...@usc.edu> writes:
>If you're only going to have one lens, I don't think a 100/105 mm lens
>is a good choice. If you ever want to take a shot of more than a couple
>of people in a medium sized room, you'll be stuck. Your lens will simply
>be too long. Try it out with your Sigma zoom set at the long end and see
>how your compositions are limited. IMO, you should return the Sigma for
>the Canon 28-105 USM and have done. You will still have the 105 focal
>length at an aperture of 4.5, which isn't too bad.
Besides the 28-135 from Canon, I am looking for a portrait lens.
Chieh Cheng
> >I also have the Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro. It is very sharp. Thus, to me makes a
> >poor portrait lens, because it shows all imperfection of the skin.
> What are you using it for?
It is an extremely sharp macro lens that is capable of 1:1 ratio. I use it to
get extreme close-up of flowers, insects, and other tiny objects. Most of the
lens pictures that I took myself on my Camera Hacker web-site are also taken
with this lens, because other lens can not focus close enough.
It is also a great 105mm lens if you need extreme shareness.