Quote:
Originally Posted by postcardcv
I used to think that the Sigma EX lenses were right up there with the Canon L's, I owned a 500 f4.5, a 100-300 f4 and a 70-200 f2.8. I got the chance to upgrade my 500 to the Canon (as you know). Initially I didn't think there was much in it, but once I got to grips with the Canon I started to see why it costs so much more. The IQ is noticebly better and it performs better in really testing conditions, in good light there's not much between them.
I then tested my 70-200 f2.8 against the Canon 70-200 f4 and far prefered the Canon - images are that bit sharper and the colours are richer. After that I realised that while cheaper lenses can do the job there really is an advantage to top end glass.
As for the 18-55 kit lens vs the 17-40 f4, there is a world of difference between them - sure both can take got photos, but the 17-40 will do so more consistently, especially when conditions are less than ideal.
|
Having seen your images with the canon 500 f4 I'm sure you're right about it. (And I expect that applies to other extreme lenses too). 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.