Lens suggestions: Tamron, Canon, Sigma, Tokina?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Voice Only, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. Voice Only

    Voice Only Guest

    I'm hoping that someone can shed some light (hmm) on this for me.

    I'm in the market for both a wide-zoom of roughly 24-70mm f/2.8 and a longer
    zoom of 70-200mm f2.8. My camera is a Canon 10d.

    Obviously Canon makes the lens' I'm looking for, but at a very steep price
    tag for each (aka > $1000US).

    Are the lenses made by Canon that much more superior than the "pro" line of
    lenses by say Tamron, Sigma, or others? Do these lesser expensive lenses
    stack up to the Canon, or should I just save up for the Canon?

    Any insights, actual comparisons would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!

    Thanks,
    VO
     
    Voice Only, Nov 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Voice Only

    andrew29 Guest

    Independent lens tests are at www.photodo.com. These suggest that the
    Canon EF 70-200/2,8 L USM is optically somewhat superior to the Sigma
    AF 70-200/2,8 APO EX HSM. But this doesn't tell you all you need to
    know: build quality, for example.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Nov 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Voice Only

    Voice Only Guest

    THANKS!

    VO
     
    Voice Only, Nov 15, 2004
    #3
  4. Voice Only

    Robert Guest

    I am finding out that all lenses are good, but some are better, cost wise?
    most shots will not show up the defaults of the lower cost lenses, only if
    blown up to 10x there is a difference, pros look at this. 95% of the lower
    cost DSLRs users are not pros.



     
    Robert, Nov 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Voice Only

    Mikey S. Guest

    I can't honestly judge because I have only used the Canon Lenses but I will
    tell you that I could not possibly be happier than I am with my Canon 70-200
    L 2.8 IS, it's sharp as a tack and the IS ( stabilizer) is awesome, I
    upgraded to this lens from the non IS version and the IS is worth every
    penny, get it. Canon L lenses are built for the long haul, almost all metal
    and very rugged..other brands ( and Canon 'consumer' grade lenses) are much
    more lightly built and probably not as tough, though they may well have fine
    optics.
    I would save for the Canon lenses, I did and I am very happy with my
    choice...oh and the Canon L lenses have a much better resale value as well,
    I sold my non IS 70-200 on Ebay after I upgraded for less than $100 loss
    after using it almost a year..I was happy with that and the buyer was too.
     
    Mikey S., Nov 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Voice Only

    andrew29 Guest

    That depends on your standards. It's a mistake to assume that pros
    always have higher standards: for some pros, the important thing is
    often just to get the shot, even in difficult conditions when tired
    and jet-lagged and the light has almost gone. That's where they earn
    their money.

    On the other hand, many amateur photographers are very discriminating
    indeed. Anyone looking at a 70-200 2.8 is someone who is prepared to
    carry around a lot of heavy glass worth a lot of money. I assume that
    they have some idea why it's worth doing!

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Nov 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Voice Only

    Colm Guest

    That's absolute rubbish. A soft lens produces soft images and even a cursory
    inspection of the results will show that up.
     
    Colm, Nov 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Voice Only

    JC Dill Guest

    Ditto. After reading about the quality of this lens versus the
    non-canon lenses, I made the decision almost a year ago to start out
    with this lens and the 300d, and then upgrade the body when I could
    afford to later, rather than start out with a better body (i.e. d1)
    and cheaper glass. Good glass will last you many bodies. Cheap glass
    will require that you upgrade the glass sooner. Which would you
    rather have, 2 years from now, the latest camera and good glass, or
    your 2 year old camera and an upgraded lens? Which will produce
    better images for the next 2 years?

    My plans are to upgrade to the 20d next spring, and then to the d2 (or
    whatever is the heir apparent) the following spring. In the meantime,
    my images are everything I could ask for.

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Nov 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Voice Only

    YAG-ART Guest

    The D1 is an older Nikon body, the 20D is a Canon body, and the D2 is
    Nikon line.
     
    YAG-ART, Nov 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Agreed, to a point. Years ago when shooting with a Nikon F4 I was saddled
    with a couple of Sigma zooms that providied me with some of the worst
    optical quality I had seen since the original Minolta Maxxum optics. Got
    rid of them and went with the real thing (Nikon)-Problems solved.

    Currently I am shooting with a Canon 10D - My first foray into serious
    digital shooting and I started with a 15-30mm f4 Sigma zoom. In a nutshell?
    100% CRAP. Lens flare from hell at night, and a filter adapter that at the
    15mm setting created a beautiful vignette affect.

    I also had a Canon 70-300 zoom (Non-L series) that proved to be seriously
    lacking in detail and contrast. I brought both back to the shop I got them
    from, and got the Canon L 17-40 f4 and havent looked back since. Next
    purchase will be a used L 200 f 2.8 from a friend of mine. I will no longer
    look at Sigma and will be hard pressed to look at the other brands.
     
    Nunnya Bizniss, Nov 16, 2004
    #10
  11. I recently sold a 70~200 2.8 Canon lens (non IS) with my 10D. I replaced
    it with a Sigma 100~300 f4.0 lens. I had always used the Canon lens with
    a 1.4X multiplier which effectively reduced it's aperture to f4.0 anyway.

    The only difference I can detect is the Canon focus motor is quieter and
    a trifle faster than the Sigma's. Otherwise... Both of these lenses
    produce identical quality images. Both have identical flaws in how they
    resolve.

    For my money, the Sigma is definitely better value than the Canon. The
    flaws are not resolving detail in highlight and shadow of images shot at
    high ISO. Either the cameras (10D and 20D) both have this identical
    flaws or the lenses do. Right now my guess is stray light bouncing
    around inside the lens but time will tell.

    I also sold a 28~70 f2.8 Sigma lens and replaced it with the 20D 'kit'
    lens. The kit lens is OK for most of the time but it is not as good as
    the Sigma was. I intend in the next day or so to buy a medium zoom. I
    may even buy another Sigma. It was a mistake to have sold it. I hope
    this helps you decide.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Nov 16, 2004
    #11
  12. Voice Only

    JC Dill Guest

    Sorry, I typo'd, I meant 1D and 2D.

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Nov 17, 2004
    #12
  13. Voice Only

    Ron Lacey Guest

    I can't make any comparissons but I'm quite happy with my Sigma
    15-38mm and 28-300mm zooms which I use on a D60 and 20D. A little
    slower than you're after though but Sigma lenses are great value for
    the money.

    Ron.

    Ron Lacey
    Murillo Ontario


    Ron's Photos
    http://ronsfotos.com

    Ron's Cartoons
    http://ronstoons.com

    The Adventures of Ron and Dave
    http://ronanddave.com

    Paint Shop Pro Zero to Hero
    http://www.friendsofed.com/books/1590592387/
     
    Ron Lacey, Nov 17, 2004
    #13
  14. Voice Only

    YAG-ART Guest

    You can find used 1D's for a reasonable price, mainly from those that
    upgraded to the 1DMark2
     
    YAG-ART, Nov 17, 2004
    #14
  15. Voice Only

    John Francis Guest

    That rather depends on your definition of "reasonable" ...
     
    John Francis, Nov 17, 2004
    #15
  16. Voice Only

    Colm Guest

    You call that agreeing?!?
     
    Colm, Nov 17, 2004
    #16
  17. Oops. My bad....Wasnt paying attention.
     
    Nunnya Bizniss, Nov 17, 2004
    #17
  18. Voice Only

    YAG-ART Guest


    Compared to what it was new
     
    YAG-ART, Nov 17, 2004
    #18
  19. Voice Only

    Hils Guest

    Anyone looking at a 70-200 2.8 is someone who is prepared to
    Other things being equal, the 70-200/2.8/IS will get shots which an f/4
    or non-IS won't. The more you want these extra shots, the better value-
    for-money the lens will seem!
     
    Hils, Nov 17, 2004
    #19
  20. Voice Only

    jean Guest

    Read all the replies and you will see all the people who own Canon lenses
    (or Nikon) will say their lenses perform very well. With the others, it is
    either a love or hate relationship with more people hating them than loving
    them. I tried a Sigma 28mm f1,8 and a Tamron 28-80 f2,8. The Sigma was
    utter garbage and I am so glad it was damaged in a flood, I got full
    replacement price instead of selling it for peanuts. The Tamron was better,
    but not as good as a Canon lens. In retrospect, I could have kept that one
    but I did not want to take a chance after being burned by the Sigma so I
    returned it before the grace period was over and got a Canon 24-70 f2,8L.

    Jean
     
    jean, Nov 18, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.