Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sigma 70-200 OS available from July 23
#11
[quote name='Bare' date='17 July 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1279369175' post='1062']

I have tokina lenses, my friend have Tokina lenses and we don't have an any problem with pell of.

[/quote]

You will, in time.
#12
[quote name='Bare' date='17 July 2010 - 11:04 AM' timestamp='1279361078' post='1057']

Will we see a review here on photozone soon?

[/quote]



Well, if the Nikon version was available first, I would have ordered it already. Not sure, if Klaus has any plans to review the Canon mount version.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#13
[quote name='mst' date='17 July 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1279382260' post='1066']

Well, if the Nikon version was available first, I would have ordered it already. Not sure, if Klaus has any plans to review the Canon mount version.



-- Markus

[/quote]



Plus for you, booo for Klaus.





One thing about this new Sigma is interesting, it will have same breathng as Nikkor VRII. Many peoples say this is actually good for close-up performance.
#14
[quote name='Bare' date='17 July 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1279391527' post='1070']

Plus for you, booo for Klaus.





One thing about this new Sigma is interesting, it will have same breathng as Nikkor VRII. Many peoples say this is actually good for close-up performance.

[/quote]

Who says that? It sucks for close up performance (it can not even get close). The Canons (all of them) are much better for close up. My EF 70-200 f4 L USM is fine close up, even wide open. And even with an extension tube fitted.



The difference with the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II is HUGE, due to the bad breathing. A shame Sigma shows similar breathing now, Canon and Tamron show how it should/could be done.
#15
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='17 July 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1279392924' post='1071']

Who says that? It sucks for close up performance (it can not even get close). The Canons (all of them) are much better for close up. My EF 70-200 f4 L USM is fine close up, even wide open. And even with an extension tube fitted.

[/quote]

Yes you can get 'closer' with Canon but you will have less details. That are not a macro lenses, but tele yes.
#16
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='17 July 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1279371153' post='1063']

You will, in time.

[/quote]

My 25+ year old Tokinas still look great. No peeling... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> They are still in use too, be it not by myself <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#17
[quote name='Bare' date='17 July 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1279400259' post='1072']

Yes you can get 'closer' with Canon but you will have less details. That are not a macro lenses, but tele yes.

[/quote]

Care to share where you got this wisdom?



In my opinion it is not based on ANYTHING what so ever. In my opinion it is nonsense to claim that the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II is better at close distances (it can not even get close) and that it somehow would give more detail.



I will say It again, I often use my 70-200mm f4 L USM for close ups. And it is NOT the sharpest Canon 70-200 on the market (the new 70-200 f4 L IS USM and 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM II are the sharpest), yet it resolves PERFECTLY at MFD and beyond MFD (with extension tube).



The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II for sure is a better lens than the Nikon VR II for close ups. Also regarding detail. Of course it is, it has a much bigger magnification.



Anyway, if for some reason you want to keep arguing otherwise, it would be nice to see actual evidence of what you are claiming.



PS: here three examples of my 70-200 f4 L IS USM past MFD (with 12mm extension tube), at 0.9m distance:

http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=...e=download

http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=...e=download

http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=...e=download



Before you confuse shallow DOF with lack of detail... all taken wide open (f4).
#18
[quote name='wim' date='17 July 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1279404234' post='1076']

My 25+ year old Tokinas still look great. No peeling... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> They are still in use too, be it not by myself <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />

[/quote]

I do not think Tokina 25 years ago used the plastic coating on plastic outer shell parts finish yet <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> (like they do now, like on my 12-24mm f4 DX).



Peeling on the side of the lens mount... shiny smooth plastic appearing where the coating has chipped/rubbed away. Lens also developed other problems all on its own btw: (failing aperture mechanism, screws loosening and losing, rubber zoom ring "disintegrating" even though the lens is not much used and not stored in harsh conditions, front ring closing the lens around the front element loosening itself).



Modern Tokina build quality is more perception than reality... actual build quality of the Canon EF 35mm f2 is better (!!!).
#19
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='18 July 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1279406838' post='1082']

I do not think Tokina 25 years ago used the plastic coating on plastic outer shell parts finish yet <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> (like they do now, like on my 12-24mm f4 DX).



Peeling on the side of the lens mount... shiny smooth plastic appearing where the coating has chipped/rubbed away. Lens also developed other problems all on its own btw: (failing aperture mechanism, screws loosening and losing, rubber zoom ring "disintegrating" even though the lens is not much used and not stored in harsh conditions, front ring closing the lens around the front element loosening itself).



Modern Tokina build quality is more perception than reality... actual build quality of the Canon EF 35mm f2 is better (!!!).

[/quote]

Yes, well, the EF 35 F/2 also is a 20+ year old lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



I only had my last Tok, the 10-17 fisheye zoom, for a few years, but that didn't get any of the issues you mention, I must say, and I did carry it around most of the time.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#20
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='18 July 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1279406487' post='1081']

Care to share where you got this wisdom?



In my opinion it is not based on ANYTHING what so ever. In my opinion it is nonsense to claim that the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II is better at close distances (it can not even get close) and that it somehow would give more detail.



I will say It again, I often use my 70-200mm f4 L USM for close ups. And it is NOT the sharpest Canon 70-200 on the market (the new 70-200 f4 L IS USM and 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM II are the sharpest), yet it resolves PERFECTLY at MFD and beyond MFD (with extension tube).



The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II for sure is a better lens than the Nikon VR II for close ups. Also regarding detail. Of course it is, it has a much bigger magnification.



Anyway, if for some reason you want to keep arguing otherwise, it would be nice to see actual evidence of what you are claiming.



PS: here three examples of my 70-200 f4 L IS USM past MFD (with 12mm extension tube), at 0.9m distance:

[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=gallery&module=images&section=img_ctrl&img=189&type=download"]http://forum.photozo...9&type=download[/url]

[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=gallery&module=images&section=img_ctrl&img=143&type=download"]http://forum.photozo...3&type=download[/url]

[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=gallery&module=images&section=img_ctrl&img=144&type=download"]http://forum.photozo...4&type=download[/url]



Before you confuse shallow DOF with lack of detail... all taken wide open (f4).

[/quote]

Well, I hope you don't mind me saying, but I didn't particularly like the results with my 70-200 F/4L IS with extension tubes a lot either. In the long reaches the resolution clearly deteriorated. The 70-200 F/4L (non-IS) actually was better in this regard. I do use all of my lenses with extension tubes, as I like macro/semi-macro a lot, and I can assure you that close to MFD and beyond (IOW, even closer) at 135 to 200 mm is not the strong point of the 70-200 F/4L IS. The 135L does a lot better, as do the 50L and 100-400L, even the TS-E 24L for that matter.



If I have to be very honest, your pictures, although I really like the composition and colour contrasts, don't seem all that sharp, although that could be caused by lack of DoF and/or web compression.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)