User ID

No.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

[quote=Blurryeyed]Actually that is a really important point with the Sigma's, I am a Sigma Art Fan, own 4 of them but I have to say until recently they did have problems with focus on Canon cameras causing many unusable shots, with a super tele the ability to accurately focus and track is a big deal for birding or sports. Sigma can't fix the problems with their older lenses... it is not a matter of adjustment as some shots are well focused and others are not.[/quote

The ART series of Sigma lenses, seems to top out with the 135mm f1.8 … so, obviously, that particular series is preempted from QC problems which, undoubtedly, contribute somewhat, to the older tele-zooms.

Sure - accurate (and fast) AF - is a big deal - for sports, and BIF … and, it's a shame Sigma tele-zooms are experiencing these problems with Canon cameras. So, then, Blurry - you would say - if you're a Canon shooter - stick with Canon's own very best - the 100-400 II - even if it DOES cost you another $500!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Is that it, User? … No desire to elaborate on your opinion?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Ah, I see, now, Richard … you'd written "the first one" twice!!! … That's the reason for the misunderstanding!

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

"However, in terms of abuse - which is all too likely - when using tele-zoom lenses "
Why would one abuse them - they can be very expensive so most people I know who use them tend to look after them.

Bill_de Loc: US

Only real photographers would realize that Richard.

--

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Well, well, Richard - coming from a Sports Photographer - who often shoots car races - that most certainly IS - an interesting response. First, off - a tele-zoom - being longer, and heavier, than other lenses, is more likely to be carried OUTSIDE of camera bags, and is more likely to be inadvertently knocked. Secondly, I don't know about you - but when I've shot moving targets, like horses, at a horse show - I am more inclined to rest the long lens on a rail, which can contribute to scratching and dents. Thirdly, when you shoot BIF (as, apparently - you don't) you are very often crouching behind rocks or amongst trees, and if you move quickly, to follow the BIF - you quite often knock the lens barrel against tree branches, or rocks!

Bill_de Loc: US

Speak for yourself Chris. You make this stuff up out of thin air. That doesn't mean nobody has ever had an accident with a long lens. They also drop cameras and short lenses. But for most is is a rare occasion. Have you ever even owned a high quality long lens?

---

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Carrying a lens outside a bag doesn't hurt it.
I'm glad you used the word "apparently" re shooting birds in flight.
I have never knocked the lens whilst tracking birds in flight.

Have you ever shot birds in flight?
.

#1 Local duckpond

(Download)

#2 St Ives village green.

(Download)

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Yes, over a Contemporary or a G2, the other day a member had a sport for sale for under a grand here, if I did not already have my Canon I would have jumped on it, but the algorithm problem I mentioned is a real problem. Read this below from a Dustin Abbott review of the 105mm Art.

"105 ART Autofocus

My experience with the last three Sigma lenses has been radically different than all of the previous Sigma ART series lenses I have reviewed. Autofocus has been so dialed in that I haven’t even had to calibrate the lenses on my 5D Mark IV but have just mounted them on the camera and used them. Interestingly, this has also coincided with Sigma having access to Canon’s Lens Aberration Correction (in camera correction of things like vignette and chromatic aberrations for JPEGs). This makes me wonder if Sigma has not entered into some kind of silent (as far as the public goes) agreement with Canon that gives them access not only to the Lens Aberration Correction (something no third-party lens maker had access to before) but also Canon’s focus algorithms. The Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 ART and this 105 ART have behaved very much like first party lenses. The 70mm f/2.8 ART is a slightly different beast, with a different type of focus motor, and while I have also had excellent focus accuracy with it, I have noted that far fewer cross-point AF points are available with that lens."

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

CLEARLY - you didn't REALLY read that, Bill - or you would've noted the references to damage which occurred to long barrels, when resting them on rails, along with damage incurred, inadvertently, when attempting to follow BsIF - when moving quickly in the woods, amongst trees and boulders ….

Bill_de Loc: US

I did read it, and your assumption is absurd. I have been shooting with long lenses for years, as have my friends. Most people who buy these lenses learn quickly how to use them, without abusing them. Ever hear of Lens Coat? Anyone resting their lens on railings would most likely be using them.

Have you ever moved quickly through the woods, amongst trees and boulders while carrying a long lens? If so, how many scratches did it get.

Why don't you stick to things you know through actual experience?

---

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I don't want to get into the middle of something but I have seen a lot of big lenses with a lot of paint missing, typically the long heavy white lenses probably used by busy sports photojournalists or by lens rental companies, I bought my 500 used off of Artie Miller's Birds as Art site, the hood was pretty marked up and chips in the paint but the lens had been through a routine inspection at Canon, receipt from Canon was provided, and the lens is wonderful even though it is not as pretty as my smaller 100-400 zoom, the chips in the paint saved me about a grand. The hoods on those lenses seem to take the worst of it and they cost about $500 to replace.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Thanks for your input, Blurry … it is easy to understand how long lenses get abused - to some of us …

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Although there is a Tamron 200-500, I don't have one and meant Nikkor 200-500, which I do have. Yes, 13 Canon ICL bodies. EOS 10D thru 80D, 6D, 7DII, 5DSr, 5DIV, M50. I rarely dispose of my old gear; just put it on a shelf in the camera cabinet. They all get taken out and exercised from time to time. My EF 70-200L was an older one, made in 1995. There's a popular hiking spot not to far from my home called Hawk Mountain. You can look it up on the internet. I was on a rock ledge overlooking the valley below and the Appalachian mountains in east central Pennsylvania. I changed to a wide angle to get a panoramic shot.
I had placed a soft pad on a rock to set the lens on since I was going to put it back on the camera. I don't know what happened or how it got bumped but, the lens fell about 10 feet, hit a rock then fell another 15 feet and hit another rock head on. The front element shattered. A couple internal elements cracked and the barrel sustained several nasty dents. Basically, a $1700 (new) lens was trash. I replaced it with the original Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di USD.