Canon or Sigma?

[jann1033]

i'm not sure mark, but i think it might have been the somewhat uncast-member- like shorts you had on in the photo someone posted here rather than the photo gear or at least a combination of the 2

 

[jann1033]

... I am not positive I will use it alot at WDW - but knowing I have it if I want to is nice. I couldn't even deal with my 30D and the Canon 28-135 IS hanging around my neck. I had to hold the lens part in the palm of my hand during the entire trip. So I would definately be doing that with this lens.

....

i really think i got carpel tunnel from holding my 70-200 f4/rebel and that is lots lighter than the f2.8/30d so i'd sink the $40 into the lens cradle. there is a pro sigma line that is supposed to be better but not sure if that lens is one or not...
so far the third party lines have seemed like they've improved.. i was pleasantly surprised at the build of the tamron teleconverter i got , same white metal (?)as the canon lens and the tokina i got is great build as well...either i am researching better or they are building better( guessing option 1 with a little option b)

 

[Groucho]

Supposedly the lens is white because Canon uses fluorite in their "L" lenses which others generally don't do, and it's more heat-sensitive. Why? Who knows. Certainly other companies make lenses as good or better without heat sensitivity issues.

Now, I suspect that when it comes to why their big lenses are white, 10% of it is to control heat, and 90% of it is marketing. After all, their "pro" lenses are supposed to be very distinct from their more plebian lenses than the hoi polloi use. Making many of them white only furthers the distinction, making "L" lenses an aspiration item for Canon shooters. Getting your first white lens is like a coming-of-age for you poor people who chase that elusive 12th letter of the alphabet.

 

[deletedpenguin]

I've heard the same about the heat issue. In theory, it makes sense, but if heat affected sharpness that much, wouldn't every manufacturer make their lenses white? I too, think it's a marketing tactic.

With that said, I do love the looks you get with a big white lens. People tend to take extra special care not to step in front of the "professional photographer".

 

[Master Mason]

Supposedly the lens is white because Canon uses fluorite in their "L" lenses which others generally don't do, and it's more heat-sensitive. Why? Who knows. Certainly other companies make lenses as good or better without heat sensitivity issues.

Now, I suspect that when it comes to why their big lenses are white, 10% of it is to control heat, and 90% of it is marketing. After all, their "pro" lenses are supposed to be very distinct from their more plebian lenses than the hoi polloi use. Making many of them white only furthers the distinction, making "L" lenses an aspiration item for Canon shooters. Getting your first white lens is like a coming-of-age for you poor people who chase that elusive 12th letter of the alphabet.

Hey now, pentax makes a few "whiteish" lenses as well, I think they are more tan than white, but certainly not black.

 

[Groucho]

I think that the only non-black lenses from anyone but Canon are quite large and unique ones and not ones that are essentially duplicate focal length of cheaper lenses but with higher quality and faster. (Ie, nobody else makes their 70-200mm in anything but black.) Heck, Canon even paints their 1.4x multiplier white! How much heat can that little thing absorb?

Pentax did make a silver 300mm F4.5 in the '90s, I can't think of any others off the top of my head but I think their 600mm or so was silver as well. I may end up with a silver 31mm F1.8, but that's not painted, it's bare aluminum, and you can also get it painted black - that is definitely a style choice.

I think that Nikon had a couple fast long primes in gray, but I don't remember any details - and I can't remember ever seeing any such lenses from Minolta, Olympus, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Leica, Voigtlander, Mamiya, etc, etc, though I'm certainly not an authority of those companies or their lens histories.

 

[Anewman]

I think that the only non-black lenses from anyone but Canon are quite large and unique ones and not ones that are essentially duplicate focal length of cheaper lenses but with higher quality and faster. (Ie, nobody else makes their 70-200mm in anything but black.) Heck, Canon even paints their 1.4x multiplier white! How much heat can that little thing absorb?

Pentax did make a silver 300mm F4.5 in the '90s, I can't think of any others off the top of my head but I think their 600mm or so was silver as well. I may end up with a silver 31mm F1.8, but that's not painted, it's bare aluminum, and you can also get it painted black - that is definitely a style choice.

I think that Nikon had a couple fast long primes in gray, but I don't remember any details - and I can't remember ever seeing any such lenses from Minolta, Olympus, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Leica, Voigtlander, Mamiya, etc, etc, though I'm certainly not an authority of those companies or their lens histories.

 

[deletedpenguin]

^^ That's a 80-200, not 70-200.