Advise: Sigma 70-210/f2.8 APO AF
WMINTZ
This may have been answered somewhere else at some time, but I'm going to
ask anyway:
Does anyone have any experience w/the Sigma 70-210/f2.8 or can give an
opinion vs. another brand of lense? It seems to be a good value compared
to brand names (I shoot w/a Minolta AF). It also got a good review in
Popular Photography (but, does everything get a good review from them?).
Also, if someone knows of a FAQ on lense comparisons, it would be greatly
appreciated.
Thank You,
Wayne
Martin Tai
-> an opinion vs. another brand of lense? It seems to be a good value
-> compared to brand names (I shoot w/a Minolta AF). It also got a good
-> review in Popular Photography (but, does everything get a good review
-> from them?).
-> Also, if someone knows of a FAQ on lense comparisons, it would be
-> greatly appreciated.
The Sigma 70-210/2.8 APO lens was rated by German foto Magazin
as "five star foto Magazin SUPER" lens.
The optical performance of this lens = 9.6 on par with
Nikkor 80-200/2.8 ED lens, better than Minolta 80-200/2.8,
or Canon 80-200/2.8 both are ***** but with rating
of 9.2.
Lance Quest
>.
I have the Sigma lens, and I love it, except it tends to be a little
slow on the autofocus. Other than that, it's great.
*BANG* "I'll feel that in the morning." K. Cobain
Robert M Atkins
Martin Tai <marti...@canrem.com> wrote:
>-> Does anyone have any experience w/the Sigma 70-210/f2.8 or can give
>-> an opinion vs. another brand of lense? It seems to be a good value
>-> compared to brand names (I shoot w/a Minolta AF). It also got a good
>-> review in Popular Photography (but, does everything get a good review
>-> from them?).
>-> Also, if someone knows of a FAQ on lense comparisons, it would be
>-> greatly appreciated.
>
> The Sigma 70-210/2.8 APO lens was rated by German foto Magazin
>as "five star foto Magazin SUPER" lens.
> The optical performance of this lens = 9.6 on par with
>Nikkor 80-200/2.8 ED lens, better than Minolta 80-200/2.8,
>or Canon 80-200/2.8 both are ***** but with rating
>of 9.2.
You meant to say "According to foto Magazine the optical performance....
I assume.
Just as a counter-point, Chasseur d'Image rated the Sigma lens as inferior
to the Canon 80-200/2.8L. Popular photography said it was better than
the Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO, but they also said it was better than the
Canon 80-200/2.8L (counter to the Chasseur d'Image test results). I could
go on citing conflicting test reports until we are both blue in the face
(I wouldn't be suprised if someone did just that either).
Bottom line is that it is a pretty good lens at a pretty good price. The
optical quality seems to be on a par with the manufacturer's lenses.
Whether it is slightly better or slightly worse than some other lens
probably depends on whether it was made on a Monday morning or a
Wednesday afternoon.
There is so much variability between magazine tests that it would be
foolish to belive in the absolute (or even relative) accuracy of any
one test, however if they all say that the lens is pretty good (which
in this case they do), then it probably is.
Bob Atkins
AT&T BEll Labs, Murray Hill, NJ Email: r...@clockwise.att.com
Get Canon EOS FAQ from moink.nmsu.edu (/rec.photo/canon) via anonymous ftp
Robert M Atkins
Roland Reiss <rre...@hq.eso.org> wrote:
>In article <60.8834.69...@canrem.com>, marti...@canrem.com (Martin Tai) writes:
>>-> Does anyone have any experience w/the Sigma 70-210/f2.8 or can give
>>-> an opinion vs. another brand of lense? It seems to be a good value
>>-> compared to brand names (I shoot w/a Minolta AF). It also got a good
>>-> review in Popular Photography (but, does everything get a good review
>>-> from them?).
>>-> Also, if someone knows of a FAQ on lense comparisons, it would be
>>-> greatly appreciated.
>>
>> The Sigma 70-210/2.8 APO lens was rated by German foto Magazin
>>as "five star foto Magazin SUPER" lens.
>> The optical performance of this lens = 9.6 on par with
>>Nikkor 80-200/2.8 ED lens, better than Minolta 80-200/2.8,
>>or Canon 80-200/2.8 both are ***** but with rating
>>of 9.2.
>
>test procedures) the Minolta 80-200/2.8 was rated ~80 (out of 100)
>points while the Sigma only got around 70. In fact, the Minolta
>80-200/2.8 was the best lens ever tested by Color Foto in the range of
>70/80-200/210 lenses. Remarkable: the Sigma 75-300/4.5-5.6 APO (the
>old and bulky one!) got 82. Since then the quality of Sigma lenses has
>continuously degraded.
>
>Color Foto tests are much more rigorous than the ones in foto Magazin. They
>give values not only for MTF but also for distortion (in %), vignetting
>in EV and centering (in % MTF at 15 and 30 lp/mm).
>
>How can it be that a Sigma tele zoom lense gets 9.6 and a prime Leica
>tele like the 3.4/180mm 'only' 10. Don't you agree that the image
>quality of these two lenses are worlds apart?
Apparantly he doesn't, judging by the observation that he is posting
such test results in .misc, .help and .advanced and defending them
with religious zeal!
I'd be very interested to see more test results from "Color Foto" (a
magazine I have never seen here in the USA, which isn't suprising
since very few overseas photo magazines are available, and even fewer
which are not printed in English :-(
One more set of data points would be very interesting. It would prove,
I think, that there is *very little* agreement between lens test done
my photographic publications and that it would probably be highly
inadvisable to rely on the data from *any* single source.
For what it's worth, the Popular Photography test on the Minolta
lens (which also tests distortion, vignetting and field curvature,
as well as image quality), gave a good review as shorter focal lengths
but showed image sharpness at 200mm which was quite a bit below that
of the Sigma and Nikon equivalents. Though they don't give an overall
star or numeric rating, they clearly rated it lower than both the Nikon
and Sigma lenses. I'm not saying that it is lower, just that *their*
test said it was. I don't have 100% faith in Pop Photog tests either!
If you have a set of test data, but don't want to type it in, I'd
be happy to do so from a FAX, direct mail or a scanned image.
Bob Atkins Optical Fiber Research Lab
Martin Tai
-> tele like the 3.4/180mm 'only' 10. Don't you agree that the image
-> quality of these two lenses are worlds apart?
What is wrong with 10 ?.
10 = perfection. Only three Leica lenses ever got 10.
In Olympic games, 10 = gold medalist
9.6 probably = runner up.
Martin Tai
-> (Martin Tai) writes:
-> >-> Does anyone have any experience w/the Sigma 70-210/f2.8 or can
-> give >-> an opinion vs. another brand of lense? It seems to be a
-> good value >-> compared to brand names (I shoot w/a Minolta AF). It
-> also got a good >-> review in Popular Photography (but, does
-> everything get a good review >-> from them?).
-> >-> Also, if someone knows of a FAQ on lense comparisons, it would be
-> >-> greatly appreciated.
-> >
-> > The Sigma 70-210/2.8 APO lens was rated by German foto
-> Magazin >as "five star foto Magazin SUPER" lens.
-> > The optical performance of this lens = 9.6 on par with
-> >Nikkor 80-200/2.8 ED lens, better than Minolta 80-200/2.8,
-> >or Canon 80-200/2.8 both are ***** but with rating
-> >of 9.2.
->
-> Nonsense. In Color Foto (another german magazine with very elaborate
-> test procedures) the Minolta 80-200/2.8 was rated ~80 (out of 100)
-> points while the Sigma only got around 70. In fact, the Minolta
-> 80-200/2.8 was the best lens ever tested by Color Foto in the range
-> of 70/80-200/210 lenses. Remarkable: the Sigma 75-300/4.5-5.6 APO
-> (the old and bulky one!) got 82. Since then the quality of Sigma
-> lenses has continuously degraded.
The Sigma 75-300/4.5-5.6 APO was rated only 9.4
in foto Magazin
Can you give us a summary of lens tested in Color Foto ?
Like the one I have done from foto Magazin and Chasseur d'Image ?
A) RANKING ACCORDING TO FOTO MAGAZIN TESTS
foto Magazin rated lens performance in 1 to 10 scale
The following table is ranked according to average.
******************************************************
* LENS PERFORMANCE RANKING *
******************************************************
* RANK AVG STD HIGH LOW *
******************************************************
* *
* 1 LEICA 9.5 0.34 10 9 *
* 2 ZEISS 9.4 0.31 9.8 9 *
* 3 SIGMA 9.1 0.30 9.6 8.4 *
* 4 PENTAX 9.0 0.50 9.8 8 *
* 5 NIKKOR 9.0 0.56 9.6 7 *
* 6 TOKINA 8.9 0.45 9.8 8 *
* 7 CANON 8.9 0.50 9.8 8 *
* 8 MINOLTA 8.8 0.34 9.2 8.2 *
* 9 TAMRON 8.7 0.64 9.4 7.2 *
* 10 VIVITAR 8.1 0.73 9 7.2 *
******************************************************
The grand average of all lenses with rating >6.9
is 9.0.
Obviously
Leica, Zeiss lenses have significant above average
performances.
Sigma lenses perform slight better than average.
Pentax and Nikkor lenses have average performances.
Tokina, Canon, Minolta lenses perform slightly
below average.
B) RANKING ACCORDING TO CHASSEUR D'IMAGE TESTS
Chasseur d'Image rated lens performance with number of stars,
the highest rating give *****.
27 LEICA LENSES TESTED
7 ***** LENSES 26%
17 ZEISS LENSE TESTED
4 ***** LENSES 24%
80 NIKON LENSE TESTED
3 ***** LENSES, 3.8 %
Of 58 CANON lenses
TWO ***** LENSES 3.5%
Or according to average
LEICA 3.67
ZEISS 3.53
NIKKOR 3.47
CANON 3.17
C) CONCLUSION
According to both German foto Magazin test results and
French Chasseur d'Image test results
Leica optics rank #1, followed by Zeiss.
Nikkor #3, Canon #4
Xinhui Jiang
I am really getting sick of these data --- even though I have a Ph. D
in Mathematics, I don't know how many times it has appeared in the
previous one single week.
Why don't you instead post the same thing, say, once every week? Or
better still, once every 10 years :). (That is, if you know how to count.)
Cheers,
In article <60.8947.69...@canrem.com>,
Martin Tai <marti...@canrem.com> wrote:
>(lots deleted)
> foto Magazin rated lens performance in 1 to 10 scale
>The following table is ranked according to average.
>
>
>******************************************************
>* LENS PERFORMANCE RANKING *
>******************************************************
>* RANK AVG STD HIGH LOW *
>******************************************************
>* *
>* 1 LEICA 9.5 0.34 10 9 *
>* 2 ZEISS 9.4 0.31 9.8 9 *
lots more deleted
--
~{yyyy=-yyPDyyjMyy~}
~{MAHK#:RTNoO2#,2;RT<:1/!#~}
Richard E. Aubin
: I am really getting sick of these data --- even though I have a Ph. D
: in Mathematics, I don't know how many times it has appeared in the
: previous one single week.
: Why don't you instead post the same thing, say, once every week? Or
: better still, once every 10 years :). (That is, if you know how to count.)
: Cheers,
What is really funny about it is that this is the same guy who complained
about Bo-Ming Tong posting the FAQ list every week. I've seen Martin's
lens rankings about a dozen times this week.
: In article <60.8947.69...@canrem.com>,
: Martin Tai <marti...@canrem.com> wrote:
: >(lots deleted)
: > foto Magazin rated lens performance in 1 to 10 scale
: >The following table is ranked according to average.
: >
: >
: >******************************************************
: >* LENS PERFORMANCE RANKING *
: >******************************************************
: >* RANK AVG STD HIGH LOW *
: >******************************************************
: >* *
: >* 1 LEICA 9.5 0.34 10 9 *
: >* 2 ZEISS 9.4 0.31 9.8 9 *
: lots more deleted
: --
: ~{yyyy=-yyPDyyjMyy~}
: ~{MAHK#:RTNoO2#,2;RT<:1/!#~}
--
_________________________________________
Richard E. Aubin |
rau...@netcom.com -----------
| | |
"If we value the pursuit | | |
of knowledge, we must be /_\ | /_\
free to follow wherever |
that seach may lead us." _/_\_
- Adlai E. Stevenson
_________________________________________
Martin Tai
-> >-> Does anyone have any experience w/the Sigma 70-210/f2.8 or can
-> give >-> an opinion vs. another brand of lense? It seems to be a
-> good value >-> compared to brand names (I shoot w/a Minolta AF). It
-> also got a good >-> review in Popular Photography (but, does
-> everything get a good review >-> from them?).
-> >-> Also, if someone knows of a FAQ on lense comparisons, it would be
-> >-> greatly appreciated.
-> >
-> > The Sigma 70-210/2.8 APO lens was rated by German foto
-> Magazin >as "five star foto Magazin SUPER" lens.
-> > The optical performance of this lens = 9.6 on par with
-> >Nikkor 80-200/2.8 ED lens, better than Minolta 80-200/2.8,
-> >or Canon 80-200/2.8 both are ***** but with rating
-> >of 9.2.
Bob Atkins wrote:
->
-> You meant to say "According to foto Magazine the optical
-> performance.... I assume.
->
-> Just as a counter-point, Chasseur d'Image rated the Sigma lens as
-> inferior to the Canon 80-200/2.8L. Popular photography said it was
-> better than the Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO, but they also said it was
-> better than the Canon 80-200/2.8L (counter to the Chasseur d'Image
-> test results). I could go on citing conflicting test reports until we
-> are both blue in the face (I wouldn't be suprised if someone did just
-> that either).
Different magazines seem have slightly different criteria.
It is best to take a majority vote, like the technique used in
triple redundant computers in nuclear reactor.
->
-> Bottom line is that it is a pretty good lens at a pretty good price.
-> The optical quality seems to be on a par with the manufacturer's
-> lenses. Whether it is slightly better or slightly worse than some
-> other lens probably depends on whether it was made on a Monday
-> morning or a Wednesday afternoon.
->
-> There is so much variability between magazine tests that it would be
-> foolish to belive in the absolute (or even relative) accuracy of any
-> one test, however if they all say that the lens is pretty good (which
-> in this case they do), then it probably is.
Agree.
Robert M Atkins
Roland Reiss <rre...@hq.eso.org> wrote:
>>
>>If you have a set of test data, but don't want to type it in, I'd
>>be happy to do so from a FAX, direct mail or a scanned image.
>>
>
>to scan in some of their MTF curves and make them accessible via a WWW
>page. However, I'm not sure if this would be a copyright
>infringement.
>
If you just copy (or scan) the whole text of a magazine article and
post it, then it's a clear copyright enfringement (not that that stop
many people posting such things!). However, if you critically review
the magazine reviews you can use some of their data under the copyright
position that you can quote limited amounts of text for review.
Thus, for example, I could quote the test data from Fotomagazine on
the Sigma 400/5.6 APO lens ("they gave it a 9.6"), and go on to
review this score in the light of other tests without enfringing on
any copyright. If I scanned the article and posted it, then clearly there
is some problem legally. Ethically (if not legally), if you are not
affecting their sales, then I'm not sure you are doing anything wrong.
If people stop buying the magazine because you post the test data, then
clearly there's an ethical problem too.
Bob Atkins
Ng Sze Ho Stephen
Xinhui Jiang (ji...@fields.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: I am really getting sick of these data --- even though I have a Ph. D
: in Mathematics, I don't know how many times it has appeared in the
: previous one single week.
: Why don't you instead post the same thing, say, once every week? Or
: better still, once every 10 years :). (That is, if you know how to count.)
You can skip the message if you feel sick of it. Why border to follow? ha?!
You don't find it useful _DOES NOT_ mean that others don't too!! This is not
a right attitude towards other users in the newsgroups.
maohai huang
: You can skip the message if you feel sick of it. Why border to follow? ha?!
: You don't find it useful _DOES NOT_ mean that others don't too!!
those postings were not useless. they were *misleading*.
: This is not
: a right attitude towards other users in the newsgroups.
your point is well taken. but i'd say flaming is not that worse than
diliberately flush the net with erroneous information, if this makes you
feel better.
- mh
Bo-Ming Tong
Ng Sze Ho Stephen <cs_...@uxmail.ust.hk> wrote:
>Xinhui Jiang (ji...@fields.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: I am really getting sick of these data --- even though I have a Ph. D
>: in Mathematics, I don't know how many times it has appeared in the
>: previous one single week.
>
>: Why don't you instead post the same thing, say, once every week? Or
>: better still, once every 10 years :). (That is, if you know how to count.)
>
>a right attitude towards other users in the newsgroups.
I certainly found the *first* of such postings extremely useful. But as
the same materials get repeatedly posted over last week, it becomes
boring and annoying. Xinhui has a legitimate reason to complain. I must
commend on Mr. Martin Tai. He stopped posting the same stuff because of
our complaints and I am looking forward to see high quality postings from
him. Read some of his posts carefully. Some of them are very informative
coming from a knowledgeable person, except those flames and religious
zeal.
--
Bo-Ming Tong ~{LF1&Cw~}, PhD student, 520-6219603, bmt...@cs.arizona.edu
Department of Computer Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Nikon FAQ maintainer, get from http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/bmtong/
Martin Tai
-> years now, and I've been _very_ happy with the optical quality. It's
-> quite a sharp lens. It's also held up to some pretty rough treatment.
-> The so-called "Zen" finish doesn't really stop scatches if you really
-> bang it around. Also it's been rained on a few times and never
-> faltered.
Optically it is a superb lens.
How about the mechanical construction quality ?
There is one camera shop owner repeated said Sigma lens
"falls apart".
Martin Tai
-> there is some problem legally. Ethically (if not legally), if you are
-> not
This fits into "reproduction by electronics means", and IMO
is a violation of copyright.
ed lauzon
my minolta 7xi. Fantastic results. Mind you, I don't know what
the magazine labs say about the lens.
--
ed lauzon, toronto canada