Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 14, 2003, 11:24 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

NHL, ok thanks. Too bad you don't have one :-) I'm ok with starting at 28, 24 is not a selling point for me. Don't do that much wide-angle stuff. Besides, I do like my 20-35. It works quite well. I'm looking for a good lens in the 28-130 (or thereabouts) range. Hence my question about the Sigma one.

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2003, 12:52 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Well, I read up on this sigma 24-135 lens on dpreview. Seems like the Canon 28-135 is better.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=5632938

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=5650885

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2003, 1:33 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Like I said it's new and not in their EX line; However this is the other Sigma that I have and really pleased with:
Quote:
Sigma 70-200 2.8.....I have to admit...This lens was a performer for me today. It nailed my AF every time (at f2.8, too). The images are tack sharp. The bokeh looked nice, and it even came with a tripod collar for only $600.00. Build quality was excellent too. I would consider selling my Canon 70-200 f4L for this lens. The test images had a "nice look" to them....Very crisp....something many 10D owners have not seen lately.
This lens is about the only WA to Tele that I would recommend. Several of my friends have it (even with Nikon mount) and I can borrow and take sample pictures. It's actually their's 2nd generation, the 1st-gen only went from 35-105mm constant f/2.8:
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...sku=TM28105EOS

... Notice the 82mm filter size?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2003, 10:56 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

NHL,

Now I am confused. We're talking Sigma lenses, but you linked to a 28-105 Tamron lens (which ain't cheap!). Why is that? Nice lens though, wy doesn't Canon make a constant f2.8 in that zoom range?

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2003, 11:48 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

What I said:
Quote:
Actually Tokina makes excellent WA to teles with constant f/2.8 for a long time, while Tamron usually makes more compact versions with the same aperture.

Sigma is only the most prominent on my mind since apparently they are the only 3rd-party to offer ultrasonic (USM) at this time...
This is the scoop, in descending quality (and cost):

1. At the top you have the Canon 'L' series: This is the best competing with the very best from Nikon/Minolta etc... This a hobby, so unless you're making money @ it or not trying to overspend every other posters on this board, you can't afford one (or be very choosy)!

2. Tokina (Pro series), Tamron (now Di series), and Sigma (EX series) all makes 'professional' & affordable high quality lens with the same wide aperture than the 'L', usually going for 1/2 the price (can't really say its the same quality here) with all the goodies APO, Anomous glasses etc...

3/4. Canon's own general purpose lenses with various quality level as discussed in the other thread: http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...177&highlight=

3/4. Then we also have the 3rd parties (Tokina/Tamron/Sigma) general purpose lenses like the Sigma 24-135 f2.8-f4.5 discussed above.

The confusion being people tend to generalise all Canon lenses are good which obviously some are not, and all 3rd party's lenses are bad which they are not, such as my EX 70-200mm f/2.8 or the above Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2003, 3:06 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Just a few comments of addition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL
<...>with all the goodies APO, Anomous glasses etc...
They might have the goodies, but that doesn't mean they are as good quality goodies as Canon or Nikon. Of course, not many people need/want to spend for the Canon/Nikon, so it doesn't matter. But I though it should be pointed out. Another thing is the weather sealing. I assume the "professional" series of lenses from the non-OEM have this as well?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL
The confusion being people tend to generalise all Canon lenses are good which obviously some are not, and all 3rd party's lenses are bad which they are not, such as my EX 70-200mm f/2.8 or the above Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8...
Yes, most certainly. If you are picky, and careful, you can be very happy non-L lenses. But you have to be careful 'cause there are lots of other lenses out there which won't cut it.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2003, 4:15 PM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Eric

I agree with was said however for most hobbyists (ie no money), one can buy a whole set of higher quality lenses than compromise on the Canon's 'standard' kind for the price of one 'L'. Remember because they cost less you can also upgrade more often as newer or better ones come out. The other option is tying up your funds on one lens, which you'll then have to keep for a long time! (or god forbid switch to a different body) :lol:... As to weather sealing, my gear have been exposed to the Carribean/Atlantic air a few times already with no problem and if they did get dunked or sprayed by the Ocean, I wouldn't feel as bad would I?

"But you have to be careful 'cause there are lots of other lenses out there which won't cut it." This also apply to Canon's non 'L' lens as well. Canon tends to use more plastic here than most OEM, especially on their cheaper ones (just look @ the play on theses lenses)! Also this is key with the 10D 1.6x factor: Lenses that were somewhat marginal like my EX 17-35mm f/2.8-4 compared to the same outstanding Sigma EX 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 on a full-frame (or film camera) actually turned out quite good on the 10D after being cropped out by the camera...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:52 AM.