| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2006 04:40:16 PM · #1 |
| How can you tell which Sigma lenses are the really good lenses? I know with Canon it's the L lens. What about Sigma or Tamron (did I spell that right?). |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 04:47:17 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 04:48:51 PM · #3 |
Price... LOL
Sigma has the EX designation on the top of the line glass, I believe. Not sure about Tamron.
But, seriously you'll do well to research any lens {even L-glass) before buying.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2006 04:56:53 PM · #4 |
| I'm not in a position to buy anything just now, but I'm having fun looking. I'll be checking with you guys before I enter in the ol' credit card number. |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 05:48:33 PM · #5 |
i have the sigma ex 17-35 but am not happy :(
any ideas? was looking at the 17-70 sigma??
|
|
|
|
05/27/2006 10:08:38 AM · #6 |
| Preferably purchase only equipment manufactured by the company that makes your camera. I will say that in most cases the manufacture knows the camera better than third party makers. With that said this would be in referance to Canon and Nikon. Both Canon and Nikon lenses are fster and "tend" to be sharper than any third party made for them. This is most of the time. Also tend to be better built. One would only want to purchase a third party lense (IMO) when price and availability are an issue. IE I don't want to spend that much money and they don't make a wide-angle or zoom. Which for arguement sakes does not happen too often with Canon or Nikon. Price is which drives people to the third party. Just remember to check the lense out and purchase based on quality. |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 10:28:07 AM · #7 |
First lens I bought other than the kit lens was the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Nikon. I had to have a macro lens right away and this was a good price and it was in stock....I may upgrade to the 105mm much later but this works fine for me for now in the learning stages of the SLR.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2006 10:29:43 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 10:36:31 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Preferably purchase only equipment manufactured by the company that makes your camera. I will say that in most cases the manufacture knows the camera better than third party makers. With that said this would be in referance to Canon and Nikon. Both Canon and Nikon lenses are fster and "tend" to be sharper than any third party made for them. This is most of the time. Also tend to be better built. |
man, you are a marketer's dream!
Where do you have the proof that canon or nikon lenses are better (sharper/ faster /better built) than third party? F2.8 is the same regardless of who make the lens - so no, they're not faster. Sharper? Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 is better than any of the canon 70-300 type lenses, considerably so from 200mm on out. The tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 is one of the sharpest lenses made by anybody anywhere. There are other examples. The canon/nikon lenses to "tend" to be more expensive though.
Sigma makes cameras...and lenses. I think they know their stuff.
From what I see of third party lenses and what manufactureers release, i suspect (at least) Tokina makes some lenses for the camera companies.
see (this announcement and this lens )
And most of us are not made of money - you don't have a 1Ds Mk2, so i guess you have a budget as well. You can certainly spend $1250 on a 17-50 2.8 IS canon lens if you want, but i seriously doubt anyone anywhere will know what lens you used to take the picture. That it costs 2 to 3 times as much money as 3rd party lenses is absurd IMO. It does not produce 2 to 3 times the image quality. It may be better built (how can you tell?) but tamron has a longer warranty, and the sigma 18-50 2.8 is 1/3 the price, so i can buy three of them to one canon lens...so i don't care if for some odd reason it lasts 1/2 as long. Drop any lens and it breaks so none are that well built.
Some canon lenses are more weather sealed than others. Not all L glass, just some. I have yet to read a test that proves exactly what that means to the end user. Perhaps canon's USM lenses focus faster, but again, I have yet to read a test that puts a number on that. And sigma has HSM.
@raggamuffingirl The Pro glass from Sigma is labeled EX, Tamron's is SP and Tokina's is Pro. But it still comes to the lens itself - //www.fredmiranda.com has a review section that is pretty reliable so you can check there to see what users think of lenses.
What type of lens are you looking for?
Tokina 12-24 f4, canon 10-22 3.5-4.5 are both good wide angle lenses
tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 is a fantastic walk round and studio lens.
tamron 28-75 2.8 get extremely high praise, but IMO 28 is not wide enough and 75 comes up short too.
sigma 70-200 2.8 is excellent, canon 70-200 f4 or any of the 2.8 ones. If you can find a used tamron 70-210 2.8 LD SP it very good and available under $500 (i got mine for $300).
canon's 24-75 is good, but not cheap. their 17-50 IS is ungodly costly, and the 24-105 F4 IS started out with a recall..nice idea, but i'm leary of it and it's not cheap.
there are better choices for quality and price than canon's 17-85 and 28-135 IS lenses so skip them.
there are lots of lenses coming out now in the 17-50 ish range. Tamron has one due this week 17-50 SP 2.8 b&h linky or the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX for $409. Sigma has a non-ex 17-50 2.8-4.5 for $389. Today i'd buy the tamron, then the ex sigma and last the 17-70.
See the link above for the Tokina lenses coming out in the fall - some interesting items there.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2006 10:41:45 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by richard42:
i have the sigma ex 17-35 but am not happy :(
any ideas? was looking at the 17-70 sigma?? |
Which 17-35? they make 2...one sucks and one is only fair. see //www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
the 18-50 2.8 EX is good, much better than either of the 17-35's. Canon's 17-40 is good, but the 18-50 is faster by a stop, has 10mm more on the long end and is $200 cheaper and just about as sharp. tamron's 17-35 2.8-4 rates excellent if you want to stay in the same range, but you can get their new 17-50 2.8 for less and get longer faster newer (design) glass.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2006 07:02:33 PM · #11 |
hi prof
it's the ex 2.8, i think it is the older one it doesn't have a window in it, it's just not sharp :( I love the tamron 28-300 just not quite wide enough or fast enough, not a problem if i'm using a tripod which is not a problem but i want a lens i can just walk around with and stick it on a tripod to take some good landscape images. Not much to ask ;)
i'm sticking the sigma lens on ebay in the morning and hoping to get about £200 to spend on a new lens. |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 11:31:35 AM · #12 |
I tried a Canon 75-300 mm lens on Friday. It's not an L lens, and someone had previously told me it was crap. But, all the pictures came out nice and sharp. Gary, owner of Glenn's Fairprice, had already told me that he wouldn't recommend that lens for low light situations, but for general outdoor stuff, it gets the job done.
At some point I'd also like a lens that winds up in the 80 mm range, so anyone got any affordable ideas?
Message edited by author 2006-05-28 11:33:27. |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 11:55:31 AM · #13 |
There are some very useful user reviews here...
//www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 11:59:47 AM · #14 |
I question a lot of the lenses that Sigma put an EX on and a lot of the lenses that Canon puts an L on, personally.
Do your research. Typically, anything in the 70 to 200 range with a constant 2.8 aperture is going to be a good piece of glass (for the most part). Anything that's 300 2.8 is good -- 400 f/4 or 2.8 is good. 500 f/4, 600 f/4.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/01/2026 07:15:01 AM EST.
