Comments on: Is That Fancy Lens (or Camera) Really Worth It?

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:31:33 +0000

Your ‘controlled’ experiment isn’t controlled at all.

For a number of reasons; first you’re using two different bodies. How can you compare lenses, when you’re using different bodies. To get results that are comparable, the same body would have to be used.

The second reason, is the fact that you’re shooting outdoors, when way too many light sources could be modifying the image results.

Third, the subjects were not clearly in focus in every shot.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.

I do like the topic, I just feel that the setup for the test was skewed highly.

By: psjunkie

psjunkie — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:43:31 +0000

The Canon lens image looked better. I for one would never use a lens with such a wide range of zoom. I thought the 5D had a better color depth than the xti.

I have been shooting a 1D MkIIn for several years and recently purchased a 5D MkII. The new 5D is way too slow for sports but captures the most beautiful images. Hands down, better image quality than a 1D MkII.

By: waysiong

waysiong — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:34:14 +0000

I think you need to repeat the test. To give more credit to the Sigma, truly similar lens with a same body needs to be used for any comparison. Furthermore, it seems that the sigma picture has got some focusing problems, looks out of focus to me.

By: bex

bex — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:04:48 +0000

you can see a difference, but not, in my opinion, one which justifies the huge difference in price.

By: Chris in Abingdon, VA

Chris in Abingdon, VA — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:59:54 +0000

Canon lenses always better than Sigma. Not much difference in quality from the XTI and 5D.

Good post!

By: axel g

axel g — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:54:14 +0000

You would need SOME memory if each image takes up 4MB…

Great post!

By: chudez

chudez — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:02:33 +0000

i would like to suggest a semi scientific test: create a double blind test.

1. take 10 pictures with each lens
2. put up the RAW images side by side (including 100% crops) without any post processing but DO NOT tell the audience which picture was taken with what lens.
3. ask people to log-in, rate their proficiency as a photographer (newbie, competent, pro) …
4. …then let them take a guess which pic was taken with a pro lens.

i wonder what will happen?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:29:33 +0000

The problem with this review is that you
are only asking if the more expensive lens
is worth it in terms of image quality.

What you pay for in this lens is the great
build quality (all metal), weather sealing
and the full frame compatibility (more glass)
which enables the photographer to make use
of the large viewfinder of a FF camera.

By: aaron thomas

aaron thomas — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:53:54 +0000

In terms of lens, i felt the difference is minimal, to the extend of unnoticeable for the naked eyes. But a more expensive body definitely has its difference to a cheaper body!!!

By: Saucedo

Saucedo — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:33:32 +0000

alex majoli, magnum photographer, makes amazing images..

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R13S3S3&nm=Alex%20Majoli

he uses point and shoot cameras.

while you can see the difference, it really doesn’t make a difference if you get the point of photography passion+hardwork= great photos