Digital BW, The Print

Paul,  for a wider much faster lens you may very well like the Sigma 20 f/1.8.  Its one of my and many others' favorite lens.  There are a number of nice wide zooms available from Canon and 3rd parties now for 1.6x cams.  I still use a Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 that I like very much but when I upgrade to another body, if it accepts EF-S lenses, I may add the 10-22 also.

Diane

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Roark 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:25 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around]




  > 
  > According to a reply from the editor in a recent issue of Popular
  > Photography, Sigma will "update" your lens to work with the new Canon.
  > ...

  They can update some but not all of their lenses.  I called Sigma.  The 24
  mm f2.8 I have is too old.

  I'm OK with the 18 - 55 that came with the camera at this point.  The 24 mm
  was not really as wide as I like anyway.  While the auto depth of field
  feature on the Rebel XT appears to be close to random and useless, I've got
  the DOF down now.  Some charts and tests allowed my to slap some scales on
  the lens, making it quite feasible for the zone focusing I like.  And this
  little puppy really has some DOF.

  Paul
  www.PaulRoark.com 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Diane,

> ... for a wider much faster lens you may very well like the 
> Sigma 20 f/1.8.

After 24 mm the full frame wide angle lenses seem to get very large, heavy,
and expensive, with usually less than great performance.  Retro-focus lenses
have never been a favorite of mine, and the wider they get, the poorer their
performance seems to get, all else being equal.  So, I think using a
full-frame, radical retro-focus design on a 1.6x sensor is a temporary patch
that doesn't make long term sense unless one just happens to have one lying
around.
 
>...but when I upgrade to another body, if it accepts EF-S lenses, 
>I may add the 10-22 also.

Yes, this is the way to go for this camera if I want to go wider.  I've seen
some comparison shots with this lens and the third-party versions, and the
Canon looks way better.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> 
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Paul Roark
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:25 AM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was
> www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around]
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   >
>   > According to a reply from the editor in a recent issue of Popular
>   > Photography, Sigma will "update" your lens to work with the new Canon.
>   > ...
> 
>   They can update some but not all of their lenses.  I called Sigma.  The
> 24
>   mm f2.8 I have is too old.
> 
>   I'm OK with the 18 - 55 that came with the camera at this point.  The 24
> mm
>   was not really as wide as I like anyway.  While the auto depth of field
>   feature on the Rebel XT appears to be close to random and useless, I've
> got
>   the DOF down now.  Some charts and tests allowed my to slap some scales
> on
>   the lens, making it quite feasible for the zone focusing I like.  And
> this
>   little puppy really has some DOF.
> 
>   Paul
>   www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
> MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

This lens does offer very good performance though--and its been a favorite of Canon photographers over the Canon 20.   Just depends upon whether you want a zoom or not.  Not having tried the 10-22 I'm not sure, but I prefer a faster lens for some purposes so will certainly not drop this lens.

Diane

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Roark 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:27 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around]


  > Diane,

  > ... for a wider much faster lens you may very well like the 
  > Sigma 20 f/1.8.

  After 24 mm the full frame wide angle lenses seem to get very large, heavy,
  and expensive, with usually less than great performance.  Retro-focus lenses
  have never been a favorite of mine, and the wider they get, the poorer their
  performance seems to get, all else being equal.  So, I think using a
  full-frame, radical retro-focus design on a 1.6x sensor is a temporary patch
  that doesn't make long term sense unless one just happens to have one lying
  around.

  >...but when I upgrade to another body, if it accepts EF-S lenses, 
  >I may add the 10-22 also.

  Yes, this is the way to go for this camera if I want to go wider.  I've seen
  some comparison shots with this lens and the third-party versions, and the
  Canon looks way better.

  Paul
  www.PaulRoark.com 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is not exactly to the point so far but in my own adventures with Sigma
I got myself  a 55-200 as Nikon didn¹t make anything like that.
The idea of shooting with a zoom which went into the wide angle range on my
white backdrop dis appealed to my logic on the whole optics thing.
My 55-200 is the first third party lens I¹ve ever landed. I¹ve always been
against that sort of thing.
Unless they were making something your own camera system didn¹t already
have. And this was that.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3288&navigator=6

What I was looking for was a ³digital² replacement for my D100 of your
typical very useful 70-200 for shooting on my white backdrop. People in
portraiture and fashion situations.
That would translate to a 50-135.
But 55-200 is close enough.  70-300¹s have taken over unless you are getting
a 2.8 so I¹d be resigned to that sort of thinking ahead of time.
With film I use Nikons 70-300 ED instead of the 2.8
I don¹t need 2.8 I tend to shoot at f11.

This week however Nikon announces it¹s own 55-200 finally.
And it¹s AF-S.  meaning silent wave. Or American field service depending on
how you look at it.
And I¹ts not going to be free like the Sigma.

For $123.45 cents my Sigma 55-200 does not have an ultrasonic anything in
it..
I¹ts light as a feather and has a finish which makes my D100 look bad in
comparison.
It kind of looks like expensive golf clubs. I¹ts like it¹s graphite or
something.

The whole idea of optics designed for this smaller digital crop circle
appeals like crazy to me. Its close enough to half frame which is almost
identical to APS-C.
The compactness of what the glass could be appeals to me.

But the big question is how can something this cheap be any good?
But another question might be how bad would it have to be to not be worth
the money?
I had a hunch it might be worth checking out. So I landed one.
Sigma made a lens or two for Leica over the years. Leica would get in a
shipment of 100;
And pick out 20 which passed their tests.
But Sigma has a good ring to it for me. Tamron does not.

I walked it around the neighborhood and around Portland and all the images
appeared to be beyond reproach.
It sure balances well and doesn't get in the way.

I shot a family and my backdrop light was not going off. So I cranked it up.
Makes for a nice look anyway.
I got Kojak like blobs. Blue;
On one out of every dozen frames. One or two of the "keepers".
I took them out easily enough having my clone tool set to "color" as I
recall.

I tested the lens some more on the backdrop and as long as I don¹t create a
high flare situation like I did by cranking up the backdrop light. (I
figured out what went wrong on that). Then it works just fine.

And I have the AF turned off half the time anyway. So the silent wave might
not be a big deal for me.
I don't need AutoFocus.
I AM AutoFocus.

When I think ³Silent wave² I think the trailer for Blue Velvet!

Eventually I'll probably will get the Nikon if it's comes down in price and
if it gets great reviews. Both.
A lens of such specs is the real money maker for me.
Although I'm ok with primes.
Like the 60 macro which becomes a 90.
But then I have to run forward quickly to get a head shot. :)


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/

This is not exactly to the point so far but in my own adventures with Sigma
I got myself  a 55-200 as Nikon didn¹t make anything like that.
The idea of shooting with a zoom which went into the wide angle range on my
white backdrop dis appealed to my logic on the whole optics thing.
My 55-200 is the first third party lens I¹ve ever landed. I¹ve always been
against that sort of thing.
Unless they were making something your own camera system didn¹t already
have. And this was that.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3288&navigator=6

What I was looking for was a ³digital² replacement for my D100 of your
typical very useful 70-200 for shooting on my white backdrop. People in
portraiture and fashion situations.
That would translate to a 50-135.
But 55-200 is close enough.  70-300¹s have taken over unless you are getting
a 2.8 so I¹d be resigned to that sort of thinking ahead of time.
With film I use Nikons 70-300 ED instead of the 2.8
I don¹t need 2.8 I tend to shoot at f11.

This week however Nikon announces it¹s own 55-200 finally.
And it¹s AF-S.  meaning silent wave. Or American field service depending on
how you look at it.
And I¹ts not going to be free like the Sigma.

For $123.45 cents my Sigma 55-200 does not have an ultrasonic anything in
it..
I¹ts light as a feather and has a finish which makes my D100 look bad in
comparison.
It kind of looks like expensive golf clubs. I¹ts like it¹s graphite or
something.

The whole idea of optics designed for this smaller digital crop circle
appeals like crazy to me. Its close enough to half frame which is almost
identical to APS-C.
The compactness of what the glass could be appeals to me.

But the big question is how can something this cheap be any good?
But another question might be how bad would it have to be to not be worth
the money?
I had a hunch it might be worth checking out. So I landed one.
Sigma made a lens or two for Leica over the years. Leica would get in a
shipment of 100;
And pick out 20 which passed their tests.
But Sigma has a good ring to it for me. Tamron does not.

I walked it around the neighborhood and around Portland and all the images
appeared to be beyond reproach.
It sure balances well and doesn't get in the way.

I shot a family and my backdrop light was not going off. So I cranked it up.
Makes for a nice look anyway.
I got Kojak like blobs. Blue;
On one out of every dozen frames. One or two of the "keepers".
I took them out easily enough having my clone tool set to "color" as I
recall.

I tested the lens some more on the backdrop and as long as I don¹t create a
high flare situation like I did by cranking up the backdrop light. (I
figured out what went wrong on that). Then it works just fine.

And I have the AF turned off half the time anyway. So the silent wave might
not be a big deal for me.
I don't need AutoFocus.
I AM AutoFocus.

When I think ³Silent wave² I think the trailer for Blue Velvet!

Eventually I'll probably will get the Nikon if it's comes down in price and
if it gets great reviews. Both.
A lens of such specs is the real money maker for me.
Although I'm ok with primes.
Like the 60 macro which becomes a 90.
But then I have to run forward quickly to get a head shot. :)


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]