Quote:
Originally Posted by postcardcv
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.
|
Yes - I think you're right there. Sigma has certainly had a reputation for dodgy quality control in the past, and I guess I have been lucky with my lenses. (If my first sigma Ex had been a duff one, I probably wouldnt have persisted with them!)
And it is definately the photographer that makes the biggest difference, despite all that the adverts would have us believe!