File :-(, x, )
Sigma lens Anonymous
what's with sigma making off color lenses? they're all grayish under light with that finish they have

don't they realize everyone has black cameras? minus those douches with silver bodies

sigma lenses look fucking weird on any camera, pic related
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon DIGITAL IXUS 400Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:02:18 14:51:30Exposure Time0.4 secF-Numberf/4.0Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length15.44 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width400Image Height299RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
pro tip: your lighting is blue.
>> Anonymous
that's just a pic i found on google

but i have it in real life, it's gray dude. it only looks black under shade

if there's any amount of light, it loosk gray and it's ghetto as fuck
>> Anonymous
1. Who the fuck cares what color your lens is. If that seriously bothers you, quit photography.

2. I have a couple sigma lenses and they're matte black. I suppose they look a little lighter than the camera body in bright light, but they have a coarse powdercoat finish as well.
>> Anonymous
>>165345powdercoat finish

that's what makes it look gray

it just looks really weird
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>165338
Dude, it's sigma. People either won't know the difference, or they'll know it's basically a budget lens from the brand. You know what you bought and why you bought it, so who fucking cares?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>165345Who the fuck cares what color your lens is.

Oh hai, someone said colored lens?
>> Anonymous
>>165348they'll know it's basically a budget lens from the brand.

uh, i paid $400 for it, that's not a budget lens, it's EX grade from sigma
>> Anonymous
>>165350
>>165351

Once again, what difference does it make what color your lens is? Will a 70-200 f/2.8L somehow quit being a good lens if it wasn't super-loook-at-me white? Would the Sigma get any sharper if it were jet black? No. Quit obsessing over how your gear looks and use it.
>> Anonymous
i didn't complain about the image quality

this is a you know what grinds my gears thing

i was ranting
>> Anonymous
>>165357
Well, high-end teles are in light colors or available in light colors to keep them from overheating and the glass changing size when sports photographers leave them sitting in the hot stadium/golf course/whatever sun for hours.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>165351
Seems like a lot of people buy sigma to get a lower cost version of something. Yeah there are other reasons for buying a sigma, it isn't always the case, but it is generally a budget brand. Even their ex lenses tend to be cheaper than the nikon or canon equivalent. Doesn't mean they aren't good just cause they're budget. Remember, people see my 18-55 kit lens and are impressed, either everything looks pro to them, or they'll know the difference and won't care.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
The colour difference doesn't matter to me and I'd rather Canon made their white L lenses like the 70-200 in black or that powder grey look too as it would be less noticeable than the white.
>> Anonymous
>>165367Seems like a lot of people buy sigma to get a lower cost version of something.

uh, maybe their shitty ass zooms, sigma makes fucking awesome primes

nikon (and canon) don't have a 30mm at motherfucking 1.4 and is HSM

sigma is good at filling the holes that nikon won't

the more you knew
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>165381
Did you read the next sentence? I know there are other reasons to buy sigma.
>> Anonymous
The Sigma 70-200 2.8 non IS is a hair's breadth from the Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS. From the testing I have seen I'd say there are reasons other than money to pick one or the other. If Sigma released an OS version of it then it would be very tempting.
>> Anonymous
>>165385

i read all of your posts

you make it sound like sigma is for poor people and all they have are cheap shit
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>165426
Uh, no. I didn't say that at all. But I was only talking about price, I wasn't talking about the other reasons to buy sigma. I was only, only filling in my previous statement about them being known as a budget brand. If you hear the word "budget" and think "cheap shit" that's your problem.
>> Anonymous
>>165441

brandfag
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>165443
pssh. failtroll. :P
>> Anonymous
budget means cheap shit for a lot of people

d40 is a budget camera

tamron makes budget zooms

creative makes budget mp3 players

hyundai makes budget cars

you can replace the words and it all makes sense
>> Anonymous
irony is when people care if their camera is aesthetically pleasing
>> Anonymous
>>165625

nikon got giugiaro to design the d3 body lulz
>> Anonymous
>>165625irony

I don't think you know what irony means..
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>165447

>creative makes budget mp3 players<

Move along with the rest of the Ipod faggots, enjoy your Itunes, Imac and the rest of your cheap Ifaggotry.
>> Anonymous
>>165649
>I am a butthurt Creative owner.

Dude, even the Zune is better than that shit.
Enjoy UR awkward interface and counter-intuitive design.
>> Anonymous
>>165649

It will still be considered "budget" and "cheap" by most people.

See>>165397The Sigma 70-200 2.8 non IS is a hair's breadth from the Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS.

Try and convince the people buying Nikon/Canon genuine to get a Sigma of the same caliber but for less.
>> Anonymous
Not-the-OP here:

I'm wanting to get a decent zoom for my camera, would Anon suggest:

1) Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens for Pentax and Samsung SLR Cameras

2) Pentax - 75-300mm F4.5-5.8 SMCP-FA J AL Zoom Lens

They're both basically the same price ($140).
>> Anonymous
>>165652

Im not butthurt man, im buttPROUD of my Mp3, your shit will break, give it time. Enjoy your radio and voice recorder, oh wait.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>165663

save up for a 80-200

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 350D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsPhotographerunknownImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:07:08 17:28:36Exposure Time1/5 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height418RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>165652
>awkward interface and counter-intuitive design.
Ever used one?
>> Anonymous
>>165669

Why would an 80-200 be better?
Wouldn't a 70-300 have more reach on both ends?
>> Anonymous
>>165663
Save up some more and get the sigma APO version, for a little more that will actually take decent pictures and not stab you in the face while you sleep like the ones you mentioned.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>165674
THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST
>> Anonymous
>>165674
Save up for the 50-500, it has more reach than everything!
therefore it must be a better lens!
>> Anonymous
>>165688
>>165686

Wow, awesome!
Thanks for the replies, dudes! Very helpful!

Look, I know LONGER ? BETTER, but I do sometimes shoot wildlife, so 300 is potentially useful to me.

All I want to know is what makes the 200 better.
Are there reviews I should be reading? Does it perform better in certain situations? Is there something about the 300 that really sucks?
>> Anonymous
because the 80-200 with a 1.4/2x extender would probably have better image quality than the 70-300

that and it costs about 10 times more
>> Anonymous
>>165797
its one of the high end zooms, not a slow consumer zoom. its faster, image quality is better, etc. wildlife youre gonna want something like a 600 with a TC for reals anyway.
>> Ken Rockwell
     File :-(, x)
This is the lens you should get. Its 18-200mm and will be the only lens you'll ever need.

Its replaced an entire bag full of lenses for me. Along with the D40 I can take this everywhere and worry about getting great shots, instead of worrying about gear like most of the people here. Additionally the VR means that I don't have to use a tripod. Ever. Handheld 30sec exposure comes out sharp as a tack. Just remember not to shoot at anything below f8 - who cares about DOF? Oh, and RAW is a waste of time.

This lens has taken my shooting to a whole new level. I can get shots of roadside restrooms in Arizona that I could never get before.
>> Anonymous
>>165808

That's not taken from his website so I think it's kind of sad you typed all of that.
>> Anonymous
>>165810
thats not all that long. i think you are just slow at typing.
>> Anonymous
Regardless of length, it's sad that he put the effort into making that up.

And now you're making me post, so get the fuck out troll.
>> Anonymous
Lol fake Ken.

Anyway, would the Pentax DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED Lens ($185) be acceptable?
I was just really annoyed with how short the zoom on the kit lens was. I had to do a lot of shooting in crowds and had a difficult time getting close to my subjects.

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-50-200mm-4-5-6-Samsung-Cameras/dp/B0009OAFI4/
>> Anonymous
>>165817
thats not very creative. i think you have no creativity.
>> Anonymous
>>165820

I think you're a faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>165818

quick google says 50-200 is optically better than the 75-300

not enough pentaxfags here (because they're out shooting) so go ask on DPR or something
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>165818

Fake?
>> Ken Rockwell
>>165817

Making it up? I just gave a summary of my thoughts in a quick, bit sized format that is amateur friendly. I could explain it in more technical terms, but I'm afraid that would go over most of your heads.

Remember who gave me the left-handed F100. Nikon is great!
>> Anonymous
ITT: WE DON'T BUY LENSES BECAUSE THEY AREN'T THE SAME COLOR AS OUR CAMERA BODY.
>> The real Ken Rockwell
>>165834
That man is a fake! Begone before I unleash the power of the 18-200mm!