| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/04/2006 01:36:11 PM · #1 |
I've always only considered L-glass for my 300D. However, in doing so, I pretty well only have one lens (17-40). I wondered if people who are as anal as I am about sharpness could weigh in on possible third party lenses that have seemed to duplicate L-glass for less money. What would you replace these lenses with? how close do you think they have managed to come?
10-22
24-105L
100/2.8 Macro
70-200/2.8L
100-400/f4L (is that a f4?)
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 01:43:33 PM · #2 |
For the 100 macro there are a couple of alternatives that people seem quite happy with.
Tamron 90mm macro
Sigma 105mm macro |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 01:48:40 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've always only considered L-glass for my 300D. However, in doing so, I pretty well only have one lens (17-40). I wondered if people who are as anal as I am about sharpness could weigh in on possible third party lenses that have seemed to duplicate L-glass for less money. What would you replace these lenses with? how close do you think they have managed to come?
10-22
24-105L
100/2.8 Macro
70-200/2.8L
100-400/f4L (is that a f4?) |
12-24mm sigma
dunno, won't have IS
105mm sigma, 90mm tamron, the older 100mm macro used...
sigma 70-200mm is pretty good, 80-200/2.8L is a little less
-really you should switch to nikon for the 70-200vr ;-)
80-400 os by sigma, just as good optically, slower focus, and same F stops in the range 4.5-5.6 |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:11:50 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've always only considered L-glass for my 300D. However, in doing so, I pretty well only have one lens (17-40). I wondered if people who are as anal as I am about sharpness could weigh in on possible third party lenses that have seemed to duplicate L-glass for less money. What would you replace these lenses with? how close do you think they have managed to come?
10-22
24-105L
100/2.8 Macro
70-200/2.8L
100-400/f4L (is that a f4?) |
12-24mm sigma
dunno, won't have IS
105mm sigma, 90mm tamron, the older 100mm macro used...
sigma 70-200mm is pretty good, 80-200/2.8L is a little less
-really you should switch to nikon for the 70-200vr ;-)
80-400 os by sigma, just as good optically, slower focus, and same F stops in the range 4.5-5.6 |
Kyebosh, just wondered... why would you not have IS, especially when you suggest the Sigma 80-400? I'm not trying to stir trouble, I'm just curious, as there seem to be quite a few people who have taken against it.
Dr. Achoo, the SIgma 12-24 is a good lens, despite some of the poor reviews it receives. I recently had a 20"x30" print made of a photo taken with this lens and it looks absolutely fine to me. It's full-frame compatible, too, unlike the 10-22 and the Tokina 12-24.
For a 70-200 alternative, the Sigma is quite highly regarded, although it would not be possible currently to get a weathersealed version with IS.
The Canon 100-400 can, by all accounts, be equalled by the Sigma 80-400 in the sharpness stakes and I must say that I was stunned by the sharpness of the Sigma when I had it. The downside of the Sigma in comparison includes the slow autofocus, the slow aperture (I strongly suspect that it is actually slower than 5.6 at the long end) and the extremely long throw of the zoom ring.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:25:32 PM · #5 |
| I was going in order, nothing in the 24-105 range by a different manufacture has an image stabilization system. Yes I know the 80-400 does I did say it was an OS lens afterall. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:28:09 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I was going in order, nothing in the 24-105 range by a different manufacture has an image stabilization system. Yes I know the 80-400 does I did say it was an OS lens afterall. |
Sorry, thought you meant that you wouldn't have IS. My apologies for misinterpreting.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:40:16 PM · #7 |
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
Best zoom I have ever had the pleasure of using, but then, I admit I have never used any "L" glass. Actually I don't even use this lens that much, as I'm usually using MF specialty lenses for most of my stuff, but I put this lens on whenever I'm stepping out because I know it can deliver the goods across the whole zoom range. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:46:27 PM · #8 |
| I just purchased the Tamron 24-135 f3.5 Received it yesterday. Hope it turn out to be a good lens. Buyers remorse thinking I should have bought the 28-75 f2.8 |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 03:02:04 PM · #9 |
| Why would someone buy the sigma 12-24 when it is more expensive than the Canon 10-22? Just curious... |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 03:13:08 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why would someone buy the sigma 12-24 when it is more expensive than the Canon 10-22? Just curious... |
Full-frame coverage, upgrade path in bodies...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2006 02:32:36 AM · #11 |
10-22: Sigma 10-20EX, a bit sharper than Canon
24-105L: Not too many pro grade lenses in this range.
Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 28-75
100/2.8 Macro:
Tamron 90mm macro and Tokina 100mm ATX PRO D macro (pop. photo recently tested this and gave rave reviews)
70-200/2.8L: Possibly Sigma 70-200, but it's not as sharp at f2.8 or f4
100-400/f4L: Sigma 50-500, slightly sharper/equal with more range and costs less. Plus, no push pull zoom
All these lenses are tested on photozone.de (except Sigma 24-70 and Tokina 100) and it includes MTF values to quantitatively compare sharpness. fstopjojo on pbase has many shots to compare and pixel peep as well. Here's his site.
//www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests
|
|
|
|
02/07/2006 08:34:06 AM · #12 |
I've had first hand experience with two of the lenses on your list. And I own two L lenses. The Tamron 28-75 is an exceptionally good lens. I sold mine after I got a Canon 28-70 L but there is no improvement in sharpness, maybe some in build quality. I also have the Sigma 70-200 and am very pleased with it's sharpness. I use it for a lot of my sports shooting, both indoors and out. I find it useable even with a 2x teleconverter when the light is good (see my Triptych entry). I don't think you will be disappointed in the sharpness of either of these lenses.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2006 10:14:29 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by PhotoRyno:
I just purchased the Tamron 24-135 f3.5 Received it yesterday. Hope it turn out to be a good lens. Buyers remorse thinking I should have bought the 28-75 f2.8 |
the 24-135 is great glass - better than most L glass! You will not regret it. Over at FM it rates 9.3 (the other an 8.7) and is recomended by 100% of the reviewers. The other by only 86%.
based on a combination of personal experience and that of a friend that is a lens revolving door and now is mostly L glass:
The canon 100 2.8 macro is slightly better than the third part lenses, for color if nothing else, but since the prices are pretty close I might lean toward teh canon. The tokina 100 2.8 has good reviews in the trade press, but i have not heard anything firsthand.
the tamron 17-35 2.8-4 is comparable to the canon 17-40/16-35. yes, I know there is huge price difference on those two lenses, but probably not worth the extra for the 16-35. The sigma 18-50 2.8 EX is very good also, and a stop faster and less expensive. Just as sharp from F4 on up too as the 17-40.
Sigma 70-200 2.8 is as good as the canon 70-200 2.8. Neither are weather sealed. (the IS version is, but at $1600 it's not in this class, price wise)
24-105: tamron SP 24-135 hands down. The 28-75 2.8 if you need faster glass, but not the range on either end.
the tokina 12-24 is excellent and 1.2 the price of the canon - both are APS sized, but the canon is EF-S so can't use it on some of the canon bodies (10D and earlier). I recently read some less than glowing test reports on the sigma 12-24 - perhaps it was a bad copy, but the images were really bad, resolution and detail wise.
|
|
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: 09/22/2025 11:49:41 PM EDT.
