Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sigma or Tamron - that is the question ?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 9:27:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm looking to buy wide angle lens to Canon 10D. I think about those lenses,
but i'm not sure which one is the best.

1) Sigma 17-35mmF2.8-4 EX sperical / Aspherical HSM
2) Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
3) Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)

What you think about this one. Please help :) 

Thank You

More about : sigma tamron question

Anonymous
August 20, 2005 9:27:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <de7ll0$cui$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, Jacob Karczewski
<admin@wdrodze.com> wrote:

> I'm looking to buy wide angle lens to Canon 10D. I think about those lenses,
> but i'm not sure which one is the best.
>
> 1) Sigma 17-35mmF2.8-4 EX sperical / Aspherical HSM
> 2) Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
> 3) Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)
>
> What you think about this one. Please help :) 

If the question is Sigma, then the answer should be "not now or ever."

You're best off using the manufacturer's lenses. It's all made together
to work together.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 10:20:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have various lenses from both Tamron and Sigma and am pleased with them
both.


"Jacob Karczewski" <admin@wdrodze.com> wrote in message
news:D e7ll0$cui$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> I'm looking to buy wide angle lens to Canon 10D. I think about those
> lenses,
> but i'm not sure which one is the best.
>
> 1) Sigma 17-35mmF2.8-4 EX sperical / Aspherical HSM
> 2) Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
> 3) Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)
>
> What you think about this one. Please help :) 
>
> Thank You
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 11:39:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <de7ll0$cui$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, Jacob Karczewski
> <admin@wdrodze.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm looking to buy wide angle lens to Canon 10D. I think about those lenses,
>>but i'm not sure which one is the best.
>>
>>1) Sigma 17-35mmF2.8-4 EX sperical / Aspherical HSM
>>2) Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
>>3) Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)
>>
>>What you think about this one. Please help :) 
>
>
> If the question is Sigma, then the answer should be "not now or ever."
>
> You're best off using the manufacturer's lenses. It's all made together
> to work together.

I have Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses that I use on a Canon body. They
all work just fine and as expected. Many times a third party lens will
perform as good or better than the equivalent Canon "L" piece and
usually for much less money. A case in point is the Tamron 17-35 as
compared to the Canon 17-40L. I tested them both and the Tamron 17-35
was as good as the 17-40L and the fact it was 2.8 on the wide end and
$200 less expensive made it a better choice for me.

Also, Canon is fully capable of making some real POS lenses. I know
because I own one. It's the 28-135 IS. If it weren't for the IS the
lens would be complete garbage, IMO of course.

As for Sigma, I bought an 18-200 as a walk around lens in June. It has
great build quality and, for an 11X zoom with its range, it performs
incredibly well. Plus, it can be bought for $350. Aside from the Canon
50mm f/1.8, I think it is one of the best bang-for-the-buck lenses
available today.

Sounds like you have drank the Canon Koolaid about their lenses. It
doesn't take Canon lenses on Canon bodies to take fantastic pictures.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 11:43:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jacob Karczewski" <admin@wdrodze.com> schreef in bericht
news:D e7ll0$cui$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> I'm looking to buy wide angle lens to Canon 10D. I think about those
> lenses,
> but i'm not sure which one is the best.
>
> 1) Sigma 17-35mmF2.8-4 EX sperical / Aspherical HSM
> 2) Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
> 3) Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)
>
> What you think about this one. Please help :) 
>
> Thank You
>
>

I use on my 10D the Tamron 17-35 and I am very pleased with this lens.

Gregoir (NL)

www.fotogregoir.dds.nl
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 11:43:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I use on my 10D the Tamron 17-35 and I am very pleased with this lens.
>
> Gregoir (NL)

What lens did you use for your portret shoots ? They look amazing (sharp and
colourfull). Which pictures did you take wich tamron ?
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 12:51:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jacob Karczewski" <admin@wdrodze.com> schreef in bericht
news:D e7qqb$saa$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> I use on my 10D the Tamron 17-35 and I am very pleased with this lens.
>>
>> Gregoir (NL)
>
> What lens did you use for your portret shoots ? They look amazing (sharp
> and
> colourfull). Which pictures did you take wich tamron ?
>
>

Hello Jakub,


With the Tamron 28-75 on the 10D the photo's on page:
http://www.fotogregoir.dds.nl/portret/index2.html
and futher.


With the Tamron 17-35 on the 10D the photo's on page:
http://www.fotogregoir.dds.nl/nederland/index10.html
and futher.

and also with the Tamron 17-35 on the 10D:
http://www.fotogregoir.dds.nl/diversen/index10.html
and futher.


Nearly all other photo's with my old Olympus E20 (fixed lens)

Best regards,

Gregoir (NL)
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 2:20:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jacob Karczewski" <admin@wdrodze.com> wrote in message
news:D e7ll0$cui$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> I'm looking to buy wide angle lens to Canon 10D. I think about those
> lenses,
> but i'm not sure which one is the best.
>
> 1) Sigma 17-35mmF2.8-4 EX sperical / Aspherical HSM
> 2) Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
> 3) Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)
>
> What you think about this one. Please help :) 
>
> Thank You

The Sigma 17-35mm EX is a good lens, not a great one. It's a bit soft but
the reports from fellow Sigma users on the 15-30mm EX say it's a winner.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 2:02:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <de7ll0$cui$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, Jacob Karczewski
> <admin@wdrodze.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm looking to buy wide angle lens to Canon 10D. I think about those lenses,
>>but i'm not sure which one is the best.
>>
>>1) Sigma 17-35mmF2.8-4 EX sperical / Aspherical HSM
>>2) Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
>>3) Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)
>>
>>What you think about this one. Please help :) 
>
>
> If the question is Sigma, then the answer should be "not now or ever."
>
> You're best off using the manufacturer's lenses. It's all made together
> to work together.
I bought a Sigma 18-125 for a Nikon and am more than pleased with it. I
use it 99% of the time and bought it based on reviews and owners who had
various kit lenses as well as the Sigma 18-125 ..... the kit lenses
where supposedly going to ebay.
The 18-125 is not as fast as what you're looking for but it's a super
piece of kit.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 2:10:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <yeqdneupJa-8IpreRVn-iw@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson, PE
<cds@erols.com> wrote:

> I have Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses that I use on a Canon body. They
> all work just fine and as expected. Many times a third party lens will
> perform as good or better than the equivalent Canon "L" piece and
> usually for much less money. A case in point is the Tamron 17-35 as
> compared to the Canon 17-40L. I tested them both and the Tamron 17-35
> was as good as the 17-40L and the fact it was 2.8 on the wide end and
> $200 less expensive made it a better choice for me.

Where did I say that you have to buy "L" glass?

> As for Sigma, I bought an 18-200 as a walk around lens in June. It has
> great build quality and, for an 11X zoom with its range, it performs
> incredibly well. Plus, it can be bought for $350. Aside from the Canon
> 50mm f/1.8, I think it is one of the best bang-for-the-buck lenses
> available today.

One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

> Sounds like you have drank the Canon Koolaid about their lenses. It
> doesn't take Canon lenses on Canon bodies to take fantastic pictures.

You've got some learnin' to do, sonny.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:22:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <yeqdneupJa-8IpreRVn-iw@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson, PE
> <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I have Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses that I use on a Canon body. They
>>all work just fine and as expected. Many times a third party lens will
>>perform as good or better than the equivalent Canon "L" piece and
>>usually for much less money. A case in point is the Tamron 17-35 as
>>compared to the Canon 17-40L. I tested them both and the Tamron 17-35
>>was as good as the 17-40L and the fact it was 2.8 on the wide end and
>>$200 less expensive made it a better choice for me.
>
>
> Where did I say that you have to buy "L" glass?

Where did I say that you said it? You're extrapolating way to much from
my comparison of the Tamron 17-35 and the Canon 17-40L.

>>As for Sigma, I bought an 18-200 as a walk around lens in June. It has
>>great build quality and, for an 11X zoom with its range, it performs
>>incredibly well. Plus, it can be bought for $350. Aside from the Canon
>>50mm f/1.8, I think it is one of the best bang-for-the-buck lenses
>>available today.
>
>
> One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

Sounds like you're a lens snob. You need to get over yourself.

>>Sounds like you have drank the Canon Koolaid about their lenses. It
>>doesn't take Canon lenses on Canon bodies to take fantastic pictures.
>
>
> You've got some learnin' to do, sonny.

As do you. You recommending that someone should only buy a certain
brand of lens makes this clear.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:22:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <I96dnTVNR9sTbZXeRVn-jw@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson, PE
<cds@erols.com> wrote:

> > Where did I say that you have to buy "L" glass?
>
> Where did I say that you said it? You're extrapolating way to much from
> my comparison of the Tamron 17-35 and the Canon 17-40L.

I have only 2 lenses for my 10D and they're consumer-grade Canons.
Neither are regularly discussed in these groups, yet I have large
prints to prove that the results are great.

> Sounds like you're a lens snob. You need to get over yourself.

Not really. I just learned through the years that you're usually better
off to stick with manufacturer's lenses. Sigma products are especially
mediocre.
August 21, 2005 9:22:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> Not really. I just learned through the years that you're usually better
> off to stick with manufacturer's lenses. Sigma products are especially
> mediocre.


I've used lenses from Canon, Minolta, and Tamron, but I don't know much
about Sigma lenses, it sounds like you do, so my curiosity makes me ask
why you believe Sigmas are especially mediocre? And is your opinion
based upon the brand in general, or is it more related to specific
experiences of your own? My curiosity here is rooted in more than one
sales pitch from local shops. The pitch seems likely due to a higher
sales margins, but IMO, that doesn't necessarily mean the product fails
to deliver value beyond the nearest curb.

TIA

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:22:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <11ghvl36vf9h25d@corp.supernews.com>, Jer
<gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

> I've used lenses from Canon, Minolta, and Tamron, but I don't know much
> about Sigma lenses, it sounds like you do, so my curiosity makes me ask
> why you believe Sigmas are especially mediocre? And is your opinion
> based upon the brand in general, or is it more related to specific
> experiences of your own? My curiosity here is rooted in more than one
> sales pitch from local shops. The pitch seems likely due to a higher
> sales margins, but IMO, that doesn't necessarily mean the product fails
> to deliver value beyond the nearest curb.

I refuse to waste my money on Sigma. But there are well-documented
instances of their lenses not working when a new camera model is
introduced (because they're too cheap to pay for the license and
instead reverse-engineer). The quality of construction is generally
mediocre, and most are optically disappointing. The company has built
their business by catering to amateur photographers who are too cheap
to buy manufacturer lenses.
And their digital cameras? Downright awful.

Now, all of that said - I come to digital from the film world of mostly
Hasselblad, but also RB67 and Pentax 6x7. One does not have the option
of 3rd party lenses in the world of medium format.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:08:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:11ghvl36vf9h25d@corp.supernews.com...
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>
>> Not really. I just learned through the years that you're usually better
>> off to stick with manufacturer's lenses. Sigma products are especially
>> mediocre.
>
>
> I've used lenses from Canon, Minolta, and Tamron, but I don't know much
> about Sigma lenses, it sounds like you do, so my curiosity makes me ask
> why you believe Sigmas are especially mediocre? And is your opinion based
> upon the brand in general, or is it more related to specific experiences
> of your own? My curiosity here is rooted in more than one sales pitch
> from local shops. The pitch seems likely due to a higher sales margins,
> but IMO, that doesn't necessarily mean the product fails to deliver value
> beyond the nearest curb.

Asking Randall for an objective opinion on Sigma products is like asking the
KKK for an objective opinion on race relations. Sigma makes some excellent
lenses, the 50mm EX, 105mm EX to name two. Anyone who spouts such nonsense
about any particular brand like Randall does can't be trusted.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:21:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <I96dnTVNR9sTbZXeRVn-jw@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson, PE
> <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Where did I say that you have to buy "L" glass?
>>
>>Where did I say that you said it? You're extrapolating way to much from
>>my comparison of the Tamron 17-35 and the Canon 17-40L.
>
>
> I have only 2 lenses for my 10D and they're consumer-grade Canons.
> Neither are regularly discussed in these groups, yet I have large
> prints to prove that the results are great.

If you have found a comfortable niche with two lenses then that is
wonderful. Just don't presume everyone else should buy only Canon brand
lenses if they own a Canon camera. Sigma and Tamron make some very
capable lenses that have satisfied, and will continue to satisfy, many
photographers. For many people they provide a very good product at an
affordable price. For you to give advice to others to summarily dismiss
third party lenses does them a disservice.

>>Sounds like you're a lens snob. You need to get over yourself.
>
> Not really. I just learned through the years that you're usually better
> off to stick with manufacturer's lenses. Sigma products are especially
> mediocre.

Canon has plenty of mediocre lenses in their product line too. I know
because I own a couple of them. I also know that Tamron and Sigma make
several lenses that are much better than mediocre.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:39:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <sA9Oe.1592$r97.279@fe11.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> Asking Randall for an objective opinion on Sigma products is like asking the
> KKK for an objective opinion on race relations. Sigma makes some excellent
> lenses, the 50mm EX, 105mm EX to name two. Anyone who spouts such nonsense
> about any particular brand like Randall does can't be trusted.

Anybody who's a shill for mediocrity should be immediately dismissed.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:41:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <n7adnVA_u_k9tZTeRVn-vg@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson, PE
<cds@erols.com> wrote:

> If you have found a comfortable niche with two lenses then that is
> wonderful. Just don't presume everyone else should buy only Canon brand
> lenses if they own a Canon camera. Sigma and Tamron make some very
> capable lenses that have satisfied, and will continue to satisfy, many
> photographers. For many people they provide a very good product at an
> affordable price. For you to give advice to others to summarily dismiss
> third party lenses does them a disservice.

By and large, getting out the broadbrush, Sigma has established a
reputation for selling cheap, mediocre products to unsuspecting
amateurs who are too cheap to buy OEM equipment. Their digital cameras
are particularly embarrasing.

> Canon has plenty of mediocre lenses in their product line too. I know
> because I own a couple of them. I also know that Tamron and Sigma make
> several lenses that are much better than mediocre.

What...one or two out of the product line? What happens when you guy a
new camera body and that bargain Sigma lens won't work with it anymore?

The sting of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
is forgotten.
August 22, 2005 2:23:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <11ghvl36vf9h25d@corp.supernews.com>, Jer
> <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>>I've used lenses from Canon, Minolta, and Tamron, but I don't know much
>>about Sigma lenses, it sounds like you do, so my curiosity makes me ask
>>why you believe Sigmas are especially mediocre? And is your opinion
>>based upon the brand in general, or is it more related to specific
>>experiences of your own? My curiosity here is rooted in more than one
>>sales pitch from local shops. The pitch seems likely due to a higher
>>sales margins, but IMO, that doesn't necessarily mean the product fails
>>to deliver value beyond the nearest curb.
>
>
> I refuse to waste my money on Sigma. But there are well-documented
> instances of their lenses not working when a new camera model is
> introduced (because they're too cheap to pay for the license and
> instead reverse-engineer).

hmm... I musta missed that memo, but that explains the lower prices
and/or higher margins.

> The quality of construction is generally
> mediocre, and most are optically disappointing. The company has built
> their business by catering to amateur photographers who are too cheap
> to buy manufacturer lenses.

Ouch! I wouldn't necessarily condemn Sigma for catering to the
unwashed, many manufacturers do well with their own products, and so
long as the client is satisfied with their purchase, roll the presses.

> And their digital cameras? Downright awful.

Man, you don't give these guys a inch. :) 

>
> Now, all of that said - I come to digital from the film world of mostly
> Hasselblad, but also RB67 and Pentax 6x7. One does not have the option
> of 3rd party lenses in the world of medium format.

Okay, fair enough. This helps me understand the context of the source
better. My own experience is with consumer grade kit, and perfection
isn't necessary to feed my dog. Outside of the occasional assignment,
my interest is strictly hobby related.

I appreciate your candor.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:23:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <11giha1523nuq6f@corp.supernews.com>, Jer
<gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

> > And their digital cameras? Downright awful.
>
> Man, you don't give these guys a inch. :) 

Would you pay those kind of outrageous prices for a 3.42MP kiddie toy
that yields Homer Simpson skin tones?
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:08:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:210820052139008180%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <sA9Oe.1592$r97.279@fe11.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Asking Randall for an objective opinion on Sigma products is like asking
>> the
>> KKK for an objective opinion on race relations. Sigma makes some
>> excellent
>> lenses, the 50mm EX, 105mm EX to name two. Anyone who spouts such
>> nonsense
>> about any particular brand like Randall does can't be trusted.
>
> Anybody who's a shill for mediocrity should be immediately dismissed.

I agree, you should be dismissed at all costs for your mediocre opinions,
and that's being kind.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:23:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <n7adnVA_u_k9tZTeRVn-vg@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson, PE
> <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If you have found a comfortable niche with two lenses then that is
>>wonderful. Just don't presume everyone else should buy only Canon brand
>>lenses if they own a Canon camera. Sigma and Tamron make some very
>>capable lenses that have satisfied, and will continue to satisfy, many
>>photographers. For many people they provide a very good product at an
>>affordable price. For you to give advice to others to summarily dismiss
>>third party lenses does them a disservice.
>
>
> By and large, getting out the broadbrush, Sigma has established a
> reputation for selling cheap, mediocre products to unsuspecting
> amateurs who are too cheap to buy OEM equipment. Their digital cameras
> are particularly embarrasing.

I can't speak to Sigma cameras as I have never owned one. I own one of
their lenses which has proven to work very well. You seem bent on
insulting people who look for bargains when purchasing lenses. What's
wrong with looking for a good bargain? I could have a bag full of "L"
glass if I chose but I don't want, or need it. The Sigma 18-200 can be
used on the Canon 300D, 350D, 20D, 10D among others. It seems to work
on any 1.6X digital camera. Name me one Canon 1.6X camera that it fails
to work on. If I go to a FF digital or 35mm film camera it will not
work. I knew this when I bought it as do those that buy EF-S lenses.

>>Canon has plenty of mediocre lenses in their product line too. I know
>>because I own a couple of them. I also know that Tamron and Sigma make
>>several lenses that are much better than mediocre.
>
>
> What...one or two out of the product line? What happens when you guy a
> new camera body and that bargain Sigma lens won't work with it anymore?

You're speaking in hypotheticals which mean nothing today. If, and that
is a big word, that happens I might change my mind about buying Sigma
lenses. I actually own three Canon lenses. One is the 18-55 kit lens,
75-300 and the 28-135 IS. IMO, they are all mediocre and the Tamron and
Sigma lenses take better pictures than any of them in the same range
except for the 75-300 in the 150+mm area. Canon does make some very
good lenses but I can't justify paying their high prices when companies
like Sigma and Tamron offer comparable pieces for much less money.

> The sting of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
> is forgotten.

You're assumption that there is inherent low quality is incorrect.
Therefore, there is no "sting" to be felt. At least no more than one
would feel from purchasing Canon brand lenses.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:16:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:27:21 +0100, "Jacob Karczewski"
<admin@wdrodze.com> wrote:

>I'm looking to buy wide angle lens to Canon 10D. I think about those lenses,
>but i'm not sure which one is the best.
>
>1) Sigma 17-35mmF2.8-4 EX sperical / Aspherical HSM
>2) Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
>3) Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)
>
>What you think about this one. Please help :) 
>
>Thank You
>
Jacob:
If you're really after a wide angle lens for the 10D (17mm is only
equvalent to about 28mm on the 10D), you should consider the Tokina
12-24mm f/4 lens or the Tamron 11-18mm.

I own the Tokina AT_X 124AF PRO DX 12-24mm f/4

Though, like Canon's EFS lenses, it doesn't cover a full 35mm frame
(below the 17mm setting), it uses the standard Canon EF mount, and
therefore is compatible with your 10D. I use mine on a 350D, a 20D,
and on an Elan. Build quality is excellent, performance is quite
good, and Tokina, unlike another manufacturer, licenses the Canon EF
from Canon, so compatibility shouldn't be a problem.

Check out:
http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-00.html
http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/test_article.ht...

Numerous other reviews and opinions are available though Google.

Tamron also makes quality lenses. I wouldn't recommend a Sigma lens
to anyone unless I was willing to piss them off. There's been enough
said on this group to explain why.
!