| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/28/2003 02:47:59 PM · #1 |
I see a lot of posts, and often see in photographer profiles that photographers use lenses from the manufacturer of the camera. I was wondering as to why this is, and whether people think that the manufacturer's own lenses are generally better than independent lens manufacturers?
I personally have the following lenses: --
Sigma 70-200 F. 2.8
Sigma 28-70 F. 2.8
Sigma 18-50 F. 3.5-5.6
All these lenses are quite good, and value for money wise are far better than Canon's own lenses. In the MTF charts the Sigma 70-200 is nearly rated as highly as the Canon 50 F. 1.8.
I also find that the F. 2.8 maximum aperture (throughout the range) is very useful especially on the 70-200. I am also aware that Canon make a competing lens, however it costs three times as much. I was therefore left wondering as to why so many people buy Canon lenses?
Also in terms of value for money, as well as quality, I would recommend Sigma lenses to anyone. |
|
|
|
12/28/2003 04:58:47 PM · #2 |
I would tend to assume that manufacturers' lenses have a better fit because they were designed with their own cameras in mind. However, I'm a big believer in Sigma's EX lenses. My Sigma macro 105mm is top notch, and I just purchased a used 17-35mm EX which seems to do the trick. I really like what I read about the 70-200mm EX too. I might invest in that lens and sell my Canon 75-300mm IS. People tend to knock down Sigma because they had bad experiences with their lower end cheapie lenses.
I'd rather had all Canon L lenses, but I think there are some decent alternatives out there, notably from the Sigma EX line. |
|
|
|
12/28/2003 05:08:08 PM · #3 |
The old rule of 'you get what you pay for' usually applies. However, if you find a lens which helps you achieve your own objectives, then that lens is by definition good enough. A lot of people (myself included) play safe and buy the best lenses they can afford, which is pretty simple logic.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2003 05:32:32 PM · #4 |
I agree with the "get what you pay for" rule. You do get what you pay for with Sigma EX lenses. They are by no means cheap. For example, the Sigma macro is only slightly cheaper than the Canon 100mm macro. Optically they are very similar, but the Sigma has a slower focus mechanism.
The best thing to do is to research the lens you are looking to buy, both from objective tests (charts, etc.) and subjective reviews. All camera manufacturers have their own line up of lenses, both on the cheap side and on the high ends.
Originally posted by ronners:
The old rule of 'you get what you pay for' usually applies. However, if you find a lens which helps you achieve your own objectives, then that lens is by definition good enough. A lot of people (myself included) play safe and buy the best lenses they can afford, which is pretty simple logic. |
|
|
|
|
12/28/2003 08:42:22 PM · #5 |
| The US government buys regular ol' toilet seats for $500, are they better than Home Depots $15 seat? Compare and contrast the specs, to fit you and your budget, and what you can live with. |
|
|
|
12/28/2003 09:16:05 PM · #6 |
| I've used both sigma (when I was broke) and now full line of Canon (broke again ;D). I prefer the Canon's focusing over the sigma. The glass is a little sharper, which I need. |
|
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: 09/10/2025 04:44:35 AM EDT.
