| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/11/2005 09:07:47 AM · #1 |
Is the 28-300mm DL Aspherical IF Hyperzoom for Canon better than the 28-200mm Compact Hyperzoom Aspherical for Canon?
Would you guys recommend Sigma as a good lens company to invest in? Or Tamron? Or Canon? Or any other good and reliable brand?
Thanks |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 09:16:11 AM · #2 |
This page may help you make a decision.
Lenses are shown by brand name and then by focal range, with fixed lenses shown first. You should be able to find the two models you're interested in and make a comparsion.
It's a start anyway.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 09:20:50 AM · #3 |
I cant help you with those particular lenses, but from my experiance. Sigma and Tamron can be great lenses but sometimes are useless. Just have to read the reviews and test one if your lucky enough to get the chance.
The Canon Ls are the best lenses ive used but im happy to pay 1/3rd the price for one of the Sigmas and Tamrons
Im sure this didnt help you much. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 09:35:08 AM · #4 |
| You could out this site too. It's just a page of ratings of lenses for Canon from Canon and other brands Reviews |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 10:01:34 AM · #5 |
Thanks for the input guys.
Do you know of any website that does reviews on sigma lenses? Like the one Beagleboy posted? Photozone?
Thanks again |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 10:37:39 AM · #6 |
//www.fredmiranda.com/
//www.popphoto.com/
//www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_lenses.shtml
You might want to consider the Sigma 18-125 or 18-200 instead of the 28-200 and 28-300. 28 isn't wide enough. I highly recommend the 18-125, and by inference but not direct experience, the 18-200.
Interesting that Photozone's "survey" method rates the Sigma 18-125 so badly--exactly the opposite of my experience and I believe others on this site. Pop photo rated it much better, and on Fred Miranda, most of the reviews are 8-10 out of 10 except for two people (rated a 1 and a 2). It seems clear that those people had very bad copies.
Best thing to do is to find a place to test a few lenses yourself, look at the results on your computer, and make a decision.
Message edited by author 2005-10-11 10:44:31.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 11:39:41 AM · #7 |
I use photozone as a reference, but the ratings change, sometimes dramatically, over time. I have seen the same lens at 2.5 and 1.2 a month apart, so it is not an absolute.
also, one's own experience can dramatically alter what is good or bad. i have not used an L lens so cannot speak on their behalf, but having used a $70 Tamron and a $500 Sigma on the same camera I now see and understand the difference bewteen the cheap and good lenses.
Tamron, Canon, Sigma et al all make 'consumer' lenses (cheap) and pro lenses, and some in between. Some by their design (10x zoom lenses for exapmple, the 28-300 and 18-200) are not going to be as good throughout their range as others might be.
The question is, are they good enough for you or the job at hand?
Most wedding photogs i know use L glass at 2.8 or faster apertures. But i know one, that cahrges $2,000 an hour and uses a $350 28-200 3.5-5.6 canon lens with a diffusion filter. the filter negates the need for super shpar optics, the range makes her happy and she uses flash at shoots at 5.6 so the max ap is not imortant.
I have the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC and LOVE it. I have the Sigma 70-300 APO macro and really like it. I want an 18-125 2.8, but that is not out there - yet. canon has a 24-105 L lens for huge cash, but even it is not a 2.8. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 07:10:14 PM EDT.
