This is not true. I have the Sigma and also had the Canon and ran
tests.
One of the few times I ever did this. At 30x40 inch projections the
Sigma
at F2.8 was as good as the Canon and better at 200mm F2.8.
Maybe you have Canon envy, but I do not. The Sigma is wonderful and I
would
put it up ag
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stephen J.
> Krogh
>
> Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the proof reading, just a slip in
> typing, faster than thinking. It was the same lens- the HSM version for
> Canon. I had been "shopping aroun
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kotsinadelis,
> Peter (Peter)
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:11 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: EOS Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM
>
>
>
>
> Ste
Stephen J. Krogh wrote (edited):
...Had I gotten too spoiled by Canons lenses? Who
wouldn't They are hard to beat, especially the Canon 70-200 2.8 HSM. So I
decided to get the Sigma from B&H. At least, assuming their rate of product
turn-over, it would have the latest software version that woul
-Original Message-
From: Stephen J. Krogh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: EOS Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM
monopod made holding the camera a lot easier, and I could make quick H/V
changes with the included tripod
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex
> Zabrovsky
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: EOS Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM
>
>
> Hi.
>
> Would be glad to hear user's
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 3:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: EOS Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
&g
If 135mm was long enough, I'd try the 28-135 on Fuji Press 800 pushed a stop
or two next year.
And the Canon lens does include the collar. But as you've found, a 70-200
2.8 is big and heavy.
Tom P.
> This lens is too slow for this application,
> with the film I was using (800) The second year, I
Nelson Ricciardi wrote:
> Hi Steve.
>
> I also have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM. I fell it a bit too soft at 2.8.
> Actually, a little dissapointing. Don´t you fell the same?
>
> It´s almost useless at 2.8 and only at f4 it´s starts to be ok. At f8
> it´s the same as Canon´s. But at f2.8 one can
Hi Steve.
I also have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM. I fell it a bit too soft at 2.8.
Actually, a little dissapointing. Don´t you fell the same?
It´s almost useless at 2.8 and only at f4 it´s starts to be ok. At f8
it´s the same as Canon´s. But at f2.8 one can not compare the Canon and
the Sigma.
Do
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alex
Zabrovsky
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: EOS Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM
Hi.
Would be glad to hear user's opinions about Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM to
be
us
Alex Zabrovsky wrote:
> Would be glad to hear user's opinions about Sigma 70-200/2.8
> EX HSM to be
> used on EOS 3 as cheaper alternative of 70-200/2.8L USM.
> (until the Canon
> lens can be found used to right price)
-
Alex,
I compare
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alex
Zabrovsky
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: EOS Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM
Hi.
Would be glad to hear user's opinions about Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM to
be
used on EOS 3 as cheape
Hi.
Would be glad to hear user's opinions about Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM to be
used on EOS 3 as cheaper alternative of 70-200/2.8L USM. (until the Canon
lens can be found used to right price)
Regards,
Alex Z
*
***
***
* For list i
14 matches
Mail list logo
