Quote:
Originally Posted by gordon g
I would also agree that 'kit' lenses are a step down from the 'good glass' of top ranges of all brands, both in image quality and build quality.
My experience with the mainstream focal lengths across different brands of 'good glass' suggests the differences are subjective - as you say, colour rendition and contrast for example. One reason I dont like the 24-105 much is that I find it harder to use hyperfocal focussing with it compared to my sigma lenses, so there are familiarity and ease of use issues as well.
|
I also think that sample variation is more of an issue in cheaper lenses - I know someone who had the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 and hated it, he changed to the Canon 24-105 and is much happer. Persumably you have a much better copy of the Sigma lens than he did.
I know when I owned the Sigma 500 f4.5 I tested it against other copies of the same lens and found mine to be a very good/sharp copy. For me the lens is the most important bit of kit (I think the lens you use has more effect on your photos than the camera), but it's still not as important as the person behind it. I've seen stunning shots taken with cheap lenses, and total rubbish taken with very expensive gear.