01-18-2012, 11:51 AM
[quote name='donstenk' timestamp='1326817878' post='14970']
I am unsatisfied with the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro due to heavy vignetting and distortion, and the lack of stabilizer about which I am unsure, which is why I bought the Canon 60D with the kit lens EFS 18-55 which annoys me with CA and distortion and a general softness which I cannot explain. See the attached two pictures taken in perfect conditions (lots of light, right direction, no haze etc). The first photo is taken with the EFS 18-55 at 24mm, f/11, 1/160, the second is taken using the EF50mm f/1.8II at f/8 1/500. Both pictures are straight out of the same camera and original jpg, but there is a world of difference.
[url="http://www.incalabria.com/dennis/uploads/1.JPG"]1 - efs 18-55[/url]
[url="http://www.incalabria.com/dennis/uploads/2.JPG"]2 - ef 50[/url]
[/quote]
looks nice, where is it?? While it probably doesn't make up for the difference, the 18-55 shot is at f11, where diffraction starts to kick in, and the prime is of course sharper than the kit.
I am unsatisfied with the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro due to heavy vignetting and distortion, and the lack of stabilizer about which I am unsure, which is why I bought the Canon 60D with the kit lens EFS 18-55 which annoys me with CA and distortion and a general softness which I cannot explain. See the attached two pictures taken in perfect conditions (lots of light, right direction, no haze etc). The first photo is taken with the EFS 18-55 at 24mm, f/11, 1/160, the second is taken using the EF50mm f/1.8II at f/8 1/500. Both pictures are straight out of the same camera and original jpg, but there is a world of difference.
[url="http://www.incalabria.com/dennis/uploads/1.JPG"]1 - efs 18-55[/url]
[url="http://www.incalabria.com/dennis/uploads/2.JPG"]2 - ef 50[/url]
[/quote]
looks nice, where is it?? While it probably doesn't make up for the difference, the 18-55 shot is at f11, where diffraction starts to kick in, and the prime is of course sharper than the kit.