I retired in 2008 and starting taking sport pictures with a Fuji FINEPIX S cost about $200.00. I did that for about one season of hockey. I looked around to see what a half decent camera was to purchase and try photography up as a new hobby. I have the Canon for about two years and the main thing is that I enjoy shooting sports! Easy when you like what you are doing....Can you say Lacrosse? I won't bother you anymore.... good luck with whatever lens you purchase.
Nightski wrote:
Sooo....are you a sigma rep? Just kidding. Thank you, these really are amazing. :-)
catch me if you can?
upside down....
Brooklyn-Camera wrote:
I retired in 2008 and starting taking sport pictures with a Fuji FINEPIX S cost about $200.00. I did that for about one season of hockey. I looked around to see what a half decent camera was to purchase and try photography up as a new hobby. I have the Canon for about two years and the main thing is that I enjoy shooting sports! Easy when you like what you are doing....Can you say Lacrosse? I won't bother you anymore.... good luck with whatever lens you purchase.
You're not bothering me a bit. I appreciate the input. I would venture to say that others have found this very helpful as well. Thanks so much, Nightski
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6XCaqamsZQDigitalRev comparison video. If you aren't familiar with them prepare for a bit of irreverent humor like a Nikon strap on a Canon 5D2 used to test the two lenses. They favored the Canon for IQ. Only you can decide whether the better IQ is worth the extra money. Renting them before making a decision is a good idea IMHO.
The difference is in the details when you crop an image and when you resell the lens. The canon holds its value somewhat better than the sigma in my experience, especially with L lenses. Lenses are the real investment in camera gear, and L lenses are an investment that do not loose their value over time as much as third party lenses. Yes, they are over-priced in my opinion, but they perform very well and retain their value. I know the extra money seems like a rip and it may be, but you get pretty much what you pay for when it comes to lenses, again, in my opinion. I do think the 2.8 IS weighs a ton and the f/4 IS is a better bargain and performs very well. With the low noise higher ISO settings, it is worth a try and is a lot lighter.
Thanks for the info IM. I'm out camping. Will be back tomorrow to look.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.