| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2005 07:04:51 PM · #26 |
From what I've heard and seen on forums, sharper, nicer color, no purple fringing, and faster.
goto dpreview.com's forum on Canon SLR lenses and do a search. Also do an internet search as well, there are a few who posts test shots using the lens as well.
Sigma makes some good lens but it seems like Tamron Di lens series is getting more publicity for some reason.
Wait, I see that you have a kit lens, a 50mm, and the 75-300.
In that case, you might want to consider a Tamron 28-75 or a Canon 28-135IS and using the kit lens for wideangle work if you don't do too much wideangle work. The Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 is another fine choice but a newer Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 is optically better according to Popular PHotography. If you use the 18-28mm range a lot then a Sigma 18-50mm EX f2.8, Tamron SP 17-35 Di, or a Canon 17-40 f4L might serve your needs much better.
Message edited by author 2005-06-30 19:11:49.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2005 07:09:41 PM · #27 |
I suggest you look at the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 if you want something a little wider than the the tamrom 28-75 f/2.8. Make sure though you get
one that says macro on the box. The macro version has two things
that have been improved on over the non macro version.
1 Extra coatings for better use with digital cameras
2 improve optics. Maybe not quite as good as the tamron but very close!
And I have to say having the extra 4mm on the wide side is nice! |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 07:16:23 PM · #28 |
thanks guys
i'm going to go to b&h this weekend and check out the sigma 24-70 f/2.8, tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and canon 28-135 IS :) |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 07:17:49 PM · #29 |
Also check out the Sigma 24-60 EX!!!
Then buy the one that fits your needs the best and then enjoy the lens.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2005 07:22:40 PM · #30 |
For me, a lens that only goes as wide as 28mm would definitely not be wide enough for a general purpose walkaround lens. With the 1.6 crop factor, 28mm becomes about 45mm, which is pretty much not considered wide angle at all.
So I would rule out the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 28-135 if you want a lens that goes wide. If you only want "normal" to telephoto, then those lenses would be just fine. When you consider the crop factor, even the Sigma 24-70 is not all that wide (24*1.6=38mm), though it may be wide enough depending on what kind of shooting you do.
I would consider the sigma 18-125, which only costs around $270. Personally, I use the Canon 17-40mm, but that's a little above your budget of $500.
Message edited by author 2005-06-30 19:27:42. |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 08:30:53 PM · #31 |
I'm definitely on the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 bandwagon. Just bought two of them in the last two weeks. (One for me, one for husband)
Shot a wedding with mine a day and a half after I got it, and did a whole portrait session with it today.
LOVE IT!
Edited to add: it hasn't been off my 20D since I bought it!
Message edited by author 2005-06-30 20:31:31. |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 09:56:36 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
For me, a lens that only goes as wide as 28mm would definitely not be wide enough for a general purpose walkaround lens. With the 1.6 crop factor, 28mm becomes about 45mm, which is pretty much not considered wide angle at all.
So I would rule out the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 28-135 if you want a lens that goes wide. If you only want "normal" to telephoto, then those lenses would be just fine. When you consider the crop factor, even the Sigma 24-70 is not all that wide (24*1.6=38mm), though it may be wide enough depending on what kind of shooting you do.
I would consider the sigma 18-125, which only costs around $270. Personally, I use the Canon 17-40mm, but that's a little above your budget of $500. |
I guess I'd chime in with a vote for the Sigma for exactly this reason. The Tamron sounds tantilizing, but the Sigma is a great lens and goes "WIDE" to 18, and has more telephoto to boot.
In fact, for less than your $500, you can get the Sigma 18-200, which would give you very good reach, and basically you'd have 11x zoom in a single lens from wide to telephoto.
Sammie has both the 18-125 and the 18-200, and she says the newer 18-200 is as good as the 18-125. It's not really bigger either. So if you can afford the extra, I think it's worth it. |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 10:31:32 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
[
I guess I'd chime in with a vote for the Sigma for exactly this reason. The Tamron sounds tantilizing, but the Sigma is a great lens and goes "WIDE" to 18, and has more telephoto to boot.
In fact, for less than your $500, you can get the Sigma 18-200, which would give you very good reach, and basically you'd have 11x zoom in a single lens from wide to telephoto.
Sammie has both the 18-125 and the 18-200, and she says the newer 18-200 is as good as the 18-125. It's not really bigger either. So if you can afford the extra, I think it's worth it. |
Ok, I also own the Sigma 18-200, which is a good lense, but there is a definite downside to it. It is slow at 3.5-6.3 at maximun zoom. I went out and bought the Canon 50mm f1.8 the next week because I needed a faster lense. I have been considering buying a zoom that will stay at f2.8 through the zoom range, as the mentioned Tamron 28-75 does, as well as the Sigma lenses mentioned here. I find that with my Sigma 18-200, I am often shooting at ISO 200 or 400 during the day.
So, if I had it to do over again, I would buy the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, both of which cost about the same as the Sigma 18-200 f3.5-6.3. Just my 2 cents:)
|
|
|
|
06/30/2005 10:54:20 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
For me, a lens that only goes as wide as 28mm would definitely not be wide enough for a general purpose walkaround lens. With the 1.6 crop factor, 28mm becomes about 45mm, which is pretty much not considered wide angle at all.
So I would rule out the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 28-135 if you want a lens that goes wide. If you only want "normal" to telephoto, then those lenses would be just fine. When you consider the crop factor, even the Sigma 24-70 is not all that wide (24*1.6=38mm), though it may be wide enough depending on what kind of shooting you do.
I would consider the sigma 18-125, which only costs around $270. Personally, I use the Canon 17-40mm, but that's a little above your budget of $500. |
I guess I'd chime in with a vote for the Sigma for exactly this reason. The Tamron sounds tantilizing, but the Sigma is a great lens and goes "WIDE" to 18, and has more telephoto to boot.
In fact, for less than your $500, you can get the Sigma 18-200, which would give you very good reach, and basically you'd have 11x zoom in a single lens from wide to telephoto.
Sammie has both the 18-125 and the 18-200, and she says the newer 18-200 is as good as the 18-125. It's not really bigger either. So if you can afford the extra, I think it's worth it. |
Thanks, Neil. I was hoping you'd chime in, cuz I know from your other posts that you're pretty happy with the Sigma 18-125 :)
If I had a Canon Digital Rebel and a lens that only went as wide as 28mm, I would not have been able to get this shot...
Aguapreta, that's a good point, but I still would not sacrifice wide angle for speed. Even if you do have to shoot at ISO 200 or 400, the Rebel produces pretty clean images at those ISO levels. Just my opinion... |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 12:46:47 AM · #35 |
I had a tamron 28-80 - not the fast 2.8 one. I now have a Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC. Bought new on ebay for $420. Comes with a hood and carrying case too.
I do not miss the 50-80 range at all. I LOVE the fastness of it, the color it gives and the contrast. I spent a day at the Henry Ford museum - a rather dimly lit place - and got great pics because of this lens - it is as sharp as the canon 17-40L, faster an with more range for less cash! A winning combo there!
None of the 18-125/135 or 18-200 lenses is going to give you the image quality of an 18-50 or 28-75 lens. The more zoom range you get, the softer both ends become.
These pics were the day before at Greenfield Village. The kitchen shot is at the Henry Ford.
Here is why you want fast and wide lenses...
f3.2, 1/40, iso 800 handheld, no flash., 21mm focal length
f3.5, 1/50, iso 400, handheld no flash, 18mm focal length
f2.8, 1.30 iso 800, handheld no flash, 18mm focal length.
f2.8, 1/30, iso 400, handheld no flash, 18mm f.l. This at the Ford Mansion, Fairlane. They have a sign "No photography. Appointments can be made for photography at $150/hour". Our tour had a group of non-english speaking folks taking pics (using something called 'film'..) and videocameras...the guide said nothing so i took a few pics too. I got some dirty looks though...
18 is a BIG difference from 28mm. Also, if you figure the inverse of the focal length for shutter speed handheld, you get 18mm*1.6=27mm So 1/30 sec is easily handheld and sharp. I suppose I have some 50mm shots around here too..i took some 400+ over 2 days. Even if you shoot at 5.6 or 8.0, the 2.8 max will give you faster and more accurate focusing.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 07:15:27 AM · #36 |
| Prof Fate, that looks like a great lens! And you're right, 18mm is a BIG difference from 28mm. Thanks for sharing. |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 04:22:47 PM · #37 |
Sigma 24-60 F 2.8 $400
 |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 04:44:58 PM · #38 |
| Just got the 28-135 IS and i love it its a great all around unless youll be doing alot of close indoor shooting or somthing like that |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 05:31:15 PM · #39 |
i am leaning towards the Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8. does anyone know what the aperture is at the 50mm end of the lens?
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 05:40:29 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by k4ffy:
i am leaning towards the Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8. does anyone know what the aperture is at the 50mm end of the lens? |
f2.8 ;) |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 05:51:30 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by k4ffy:
i am leaning towards the Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8. does anyone know what the aperture is at the 50mm end of the lens? |
I really recommend this lens, ultrasharp!
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 06:20:10 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Sigma 24-60 F 2.8 $400
|
great lens, I've heard good things! Not very wide however.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 06:25:15 PM · #43 |
Considering they're nearly identical prices, what's the advantage of the 24-60 over the 24-70?
|
|
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: 09/17/2025 06:04:40 PM EDT.
