Michael Reichmann's initial look at the Canon 5D with a fe..

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You may not think he's the expert, but you can't really argue with the
pictures now can you?

And he wasn't reporting on the lens, he was reporting on dynamic range
and noise levels mostly.

That aside, I usually find Reichmans articles thought-provoking, if
lacking some minor details (which one can find elsewhere) He seems to
feel it his job to present an alternative view of most camera
equipment. I'm okay with that.
On the just plain wrong part, I'm not sure what you're referring to,
but I haven't read all of his past articles. Care to inform further?

I'm not sure why you posted the Castleman page. It has nothing about
the 5d on it.

Is this a lens post or a 5d post? Make up your mind please.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I assume you have never made a mistake before?

Reichman apologised and explained profusely about the situation.
Another reviewer he noted, made the same basic mistake that he did, and
had to pull their review also.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise.shtml

Stating that "alot" of his past articles have been plain wrong is a
little suspect. You only site one example of "plain wrong", should I
assume that you just disagree with the rest of his articles?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"wavelength" <sbrisendine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125786287.023470.276900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Stating that "alot" of his past articles have been plain wrong is a
> little suspect. You only site one example of "plain wrong", should I
> assume that you just disagree with the rest of his articles?


"alot" - what is alot?
 

adrian

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2001
73
0
18,580
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
Hi List,

Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300 digital,
or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK, and
roughly how much will it cost.

Hope you can help
Best Wishes
Adrian
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The message <1125775836.364058.61560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
from "wavelength" <sbrisendine@gmail.com> contains these words:

> You may not think he's the expert, but you can't really argue with the
> pictures now can you?

> And he wasn't reporting on the lens, he was reporting on dynamic range
> and noise levels mostly.

I was not finding fault with the current article. I was just stating
I had reservations about some of the info on his site.

> That aside, I usually find Reichmans articles thought-provoking, if
> lacking some minor details (which one can find elsewhere) He seems to
> feel it his job to present an alternative view of most camera
> equipment. I'm okay with that.
> On the just plain wrong part, I'm not sure what you're referring to,
> but I haven't read all of his past articles. Care to inform further?

His report on the then new D2X was flawed. He withdrew the report. There
have been several reports on equipment which have been at variance with
the rest of the world.

> I'm not sure why you posted the Castleman page. It has nothing about
> the 5d on it.

Castleman's methods and findings I have confidence in.

Deryck
 

Charles

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
178
0
18,630
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:13:38 GMT, "adrian" <ballard1@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

>SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
>Hi List,
>
>Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300 digital,
>or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK, and
>roughly how much will it cost.
>
>Hope you can help
>Best Wishes
>Adrian
>
>
is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens. It
worked quite well, until I dropped the whole kit and broke the lens.
If it's a new lens it should be fine, if it's an older one there may
be problems.
 

Mike

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
979
0
18,930
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
9kbkh19ftugu4hok2thrltgl7st5dgrfs9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:13:38 GMT, "adrian" <ballard1@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
>>Hi List,
>>
>>Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300 digital,
>>or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK, and
>>roughly how much will it cost.
>>
>>Hope you can help
>>Best Wishes
>>Adrian
>>
>>
> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens. It
> worked quite well, until I dropped the whole kit and broke the lens.
> If it's a new lens it should be fine, if it's an older one there may
> be problems.

Here are some results with an "old" 70-300 Sigma.
http://dhost.info/photocanon/animaux/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y&page=1
--
Mike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
news:9kbkh19ftugu4hok2thrltgl7st5dgrfs9@4ax.com...

> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens.

Huh?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike" <mike@home.ca> wrote in message
news:8nqSe.28664$z07.1031952@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 9kbkh19ftugu4hok2thrltgl7st5dgrfs9@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:13:38 GMT, "adrian" <ballard1@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
>>>Hi List,
>>>
>>>Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300
>>>digital,
>>>or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK,
>>>and
>>>roughly how much will it cost.
>>>
>>>Hope you can help
>>>Best Wishes
>>>Adrian
>>>
>>>
>> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens. It
>> worked quite well, until I dropped the whole kit and broke the lens.
>> If it's a new lens it should be fine, if it's an older one there may
>> be problems.
>
> Here are some results with an "old" 70-300 Sigma.
> http://dhost.info/photocanon/animaux/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y&page=1
> --
> Mike

Lovely results :)
 

Confused

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
419
0
18,930
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PanHandler" <panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:

> "alot" - what is alot?

On usenet, that means 1+ incidents of someone making
a mistake, admitting the mistake, then correcting it. :)

ô¿ô
 

jean

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2004
142
0
18,630
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike" <mike@home.ca> a écrit dans le message de
news:8nqSe.28664$z07.1031952@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 9kbkh19ftugu4hok2thrltgl7st5dgrfs9@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:13:38 GMT, "adrian" <ballard1@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
> >>Hi List,
> >>
> >>Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300
digital,
> >>or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK,
and
> >>roughly how much will it cost.
> >>
> >>Hope you can help
> >>Best Wishes
> >>Adrian
> >>
> >>
> > is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens. It
> > worked quite well, until I dropped the whole kit and broke the lens.
> > If it's a new lens it should be fine, if it's an older one there may
> > be problems.
>
> Here are some results with an "old" 70-300 Sigma.
> http://dhost.info/photocanon/animaux/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y&page=1
> --
> Mike
>
Excellentes photos.

Jean
 

Charles

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
178
0
18,630
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:39:04 -0500, "PanHandler"
<panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:

>
>"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
>news:9kbkh19ftugu4hok2thrltgl7st5dgrfs9@4ax.com...
>
>> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens.
>
>Huh?
>
Never mind, I can't read. the lens says 1:4 5.6. The 1:4 must mean
the zoom ratio.

I've been having trouble reading things today, must be getting old.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
news:fnhkh1htgm30dmnecs8hs7m2dure9ske33@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:39:04 -0500, "PanHandler"
> <panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
>>news:9kbkh19ftugu4hok2thrltgl7st5dgrfs9@4ax.com...
>>
>>> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens.
>>
>>Huh?
>>
> Never mind, I can't read. the lens says 1:4 5.6. The 1:4 must mean
> the zoom ratio.
>
> I've been having trouble reading things today, must be getting old.

It means that the max aperture varies from f4 at 28mm, and to f5.6 at 105mm.
The zoom ratio is determined by dividing 28 into 105 (3.75). Zoom ratio has
nothing to do with aperture.
 

Charles

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
178
0
18,630
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 20:26:01 -0500, "PanHandler"
<panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:

>
>"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
>news:fnhkh1htgm30dmnecs8hs7m2dure9ske33@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:39:04 -0500, "PanHandler"
>> <panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
>>>news:9kbkh19ftugu4hok2thrltgl7st5dgrfs9@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens.
>>>
>>>Huh?
>>>
>> Never mind, I can't read. the lens says 1:4 5.6. The 1:4 must mean
>> the zoom ratio.
>>
>> I've been having trouble reading things today, must be getting old.
>
>It means that the max aperture varies from f4 at 28mm, and to f5.6 at 105mm.
>The zoom ratio is determined by dividing 28 into 105 (3.75). Zoom ratio has
>nothing to do with aperture.
>


I wouod have guessed that I would divide 70 into 300. Shows what I
know.

The connection between zoom ratio and aperture comes from the way
Sigma wrote it on the lens.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:33:45 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 20:26:01 -0500, "PanHandler"
><panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
>>news:fnhkh1htgm30dmnecs8hs7m2dure9ske33@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:39:04 -0500, "PanHandler"
>>> <panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:9kbkh19ftugu4hok2thrltgl7st5dgrfs9@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens.
>>>>
>>>>Huh?
>>>>
>>> Never mind, I can't read. the lens says 1:4 5.6. The 1:4 must mean
>>> the zoom ratio.
>>>
>>> I've been having trouble reading things today, must be getting old.
>>
>>It means that the max aperture varies from f4 at 28mm, and to f5.6 at 105mm.
>>The zoom ratio is determined by dividing 28 into 105 (3.75). Zoom ratio has
>>nothing to do with aperture.
>>
>
>
>I wouod have guessed that I would divide 70 into 300. Shows what I
>know.
>
>The connection between zoom ratio and aperture comes from the way
>Sigma wrote it on the lens.

The "1:4 5.6" is written that way because the F/ number is a ratio of
the focal lens to the aperture opening. It's a very common way of
putting the aperture on a lens.
F/4 means the aperture opening is 1/4 the lens' focal length, while
F/5.6 means the aperture opening is 1/5.6 the lens' focal length.
Thus: 1:4 5.6 describes the F/ numbers for the lens at its widest and
longest focal lengths.
It follows, then, that on a prime lens (for example, a 50mm lens) only
one F/ number would be shown, and that would be the smallest F/
number, or the widest aperture opening. So, a 50mm 1:1.8 lens would be
a 50mm lens with a widest aperture of F/1.8.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>>>"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
> I wouod have guessed that I would divide 70 into 300. Shows what I
> know.

My bad. Got my NG threads mixed up. You're correct - it would be 70 into 300
(4.29)
 

adrian

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2001
73
0
18,580
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I Take it this means yes then ! and I should buy it

Thanks For Your Help



"adrian" <ballard1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:StnSe.2374$ix3.1203@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
> Hi List,
>
> Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300 digital,
> or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK, and
> roughly how much will it cost.
>
> Hope you can help
> Best Wishes
> Adrian
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:00:39 +0000, Charles wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:39:04 -0500, "PanHandler"
> <panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:

> Never mind, I can't read. the lens says 1:4 5.6. The 1:4 must mean
> the zoom ratio.
The 1:4 5.6 is the aperture ratio (that which most of us just shorten to
aperture) i.e. f4 at the wide end to f5.6 at the telephote end.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY