Lens suggestions: Tamron, Canon, Sigma, Tokina?

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

Voice Only <voiceonly@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm hoping that someone can shed some light (hmm) on this for me.

> I'm in the market for both a wide-zoom of roughly 24-70mm f/2.8 and a longer
> zoom of 70-200mm f2.8. My camera is a Canon 10d.

> Obviously Canon makes the lens' I'm looking for, but at a very steep price
> tag for each (aka > $1000US).

> Are the lenses made by Canon that much more superior than the "pro" line of
> lenses by say Tamron, Sigma, or others? Do these lesser expensive lenses
> stack up to the Canon, or should I just save up for the Canon?

Independent lens tests are at www.photodo.com. These suggest that the
Canon EF 70-200/2,8 L USM is optically somewhat superior to the Sigma
AF 70-200/2,8 APO EX HSM. But this doesn't tell you all you need to
know: build quality, for example.

Andrew.

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

I am finding out that all lenses are good, but some are better, cost wise?
most shots will not show up the defaults of the lower cost lenses, only if
blown up to 10x there is a difference, pros look at this. 95% of the lower
cost DSLRs users are not pros.



"Voice Only" <voiceonly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43dip016ne96p1tgq8g6q17nmbmh84upn7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:13:49 -0000, andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
wrote:
>
> >Voice Only <voiceonly@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I'm hoping that someone can shed some light (hmm) on this for me.
> >
> >> I'm in the market for both a wide-zoom of roughly 24-70mm f/2.8 and a
longer
> >> zoom of 70-200mm f2.8. My camera is a Canon 10d.
> >
> >> Obviously Canon makes the lens' I'm looking for, but at a very steep
price
> >> tag for each (aka > $1000US).
> >
> >> Are the lenses made by Canon that much more superior than the "pro"
line of
> >> lenses by say Tamron, Sigma, or others? Do these lesser expensive
lenses
> >> stack up to the Canon, or should I just save up for the Canon?
> >
> >Independent lens tests are at www.photodo.com. These suggest that the
> >Canon EF 70-200/2,8 L USM is optically somewhat superior to the Sigma
> >AF 70-200/2,8 APO EX HSM. But this doesn't tell you all you need to
> >know: build quality, for example.
> >
> >Andrew.
>
> THANKS!
>
> VO

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

Robert <RB@comcast.net> wrote:
> I am finding out that all lenses are good, but some are better, cost
> wise? most shots will not show up the defaults of the lower cost
> lenses, only if blown up to 10x there is a difference, pros look at
> this. 95% of the lower cost DSLRs users are not pros.

That depends on your standards. It's a mistake to assume that pros
always have higher standards: for some pros, the important thing is
often just to get the shot, even in difficult conditions when tired
and jet-lagged and the light has almost gone. That's where they earn
their money.

On the other hand, many amateur photographers are very discriminating
indeed. Anyone looking at a 70-200 2.8 is someone who is prepared to
carry around a lot of heavy glass worth a lot of money. I assume that
they have some idea why it's worth doing!

Andrew.

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:00:13 -0500, "Mikey S." <abcxyz@att.net> wrote:

>I can't honestly judge because I have only used the Canon Lenses but I will
>tell you that I could not possibly be happier than I am with my Canon 70-200
>L 2.8 IS, it's sharp as a tack and the IS ( stabilizer) is awesome, I
>upgraded to this lens from the non IS version and the IS is worth every
>penny, get it.

Ditto. After reading about the quality of this lens versus the
non-canon lenses, I made the decision almost a year ago to start out
with this lens and the 300d, and then upgrade the body when I could
afford to later, rather than start out with a better body (i.e. d1)
and cheaper glass. Good glass will last you many bodies. Cheap glass
will require that you upgrade the glass sooner. Which would you
rather have, 2 years from now, the latest camera and good glass, or
your 2 year old camera and an upgraded lens? Which will produce
better images for the next 2 years?

My plans are to upgrade to the 20d next spring, and then to the d2 (or
whatever is the heir apparent) the following spring. In the meantime,
my images are everything I could ask for.

jc

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

Voice Only wrote:
> I'm hoping that someone can shed some light (hmm) on this for me.
>
> I'm in the market for both a wide-zoom of roughly 24-70mm f/2.8 and a longer
> zoom of 70-200mm f2.8. My camera is a Canon 10d.
>
> Obviously Canon makes the lens' I'm looking for, but at a very steep price
> tag for each (aka > $1000US).
>
> Are the lenses made by Canon that much more superior than the "pro" line of
> lenses by say Tamron, Sigma, or others? Do these lesser expensive lenses
> stack up to the Canon, or should I just save up for the Canon?
>
> Any insights, actual comparisons would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!
>
> Thanks,
> VO
>
>
I recently sold a 70~200 2.8 Canon lens (non IS) with my 10D. I replaced
it with a Sigma 100~300 f4.0 lens. I had always used the Canon lens with
a 1.4X multiplier which effectively reduced it's aperture to f4.0 anyway.

The only difference I can detect is the Canon focus motor is quieter and
a trifle faster than the Sigma's. Otherwise... Both of these lenses
produce identical quality images. Both have identical flaws in how they
resolve.

For my money, the Sigma is definitely better value than the Canon. The
flaws are not resolving detail in highlight and shadow of images shot at
high ISO. Either the cameras (10D and 20D) both have this identical
flaws or the lenses do. Right now my guess is stray light bouncing
around inside the lens but time will tell.

I also sold a 28~70 f2.8 Sigma lens and replaced it with the 20D 'kit'
lens. The kit lens is OK for most of the time but it is not as good as
the Sigma was. I intend in the next day or so to buy a medium zoom. I
may even buy another Sigma. It was a mistake to have sold it. I hope
this helps you decide.

Douglas

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:53:20 GMT, Voice Only <voiceonly@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I'm hoping that someone can shed some light (hmm) on this for me.
>
>I'm in the market for both a wide-zoom of roughly 24-70mm f/2.8 and a longer
>zoom of 70-200mm f2.8. My camera is a Canon 10d.
>
>Obviously Canon makes the lens' I'm looking for, but at a very steep price
>tag for each (aka > $1000US).
>
>Are the lenses made by Canon that much more superior than the "pro" line of
>lenses by say Tamron, Sigma, or others? Do these lesser expensive lenses
>stack up to the Canon, or should I just save up for the Canon?
>
>Any insights, actual comparisons would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!

I can't make any comparissons but I'm quite happy with my Sigma
15-38mm and 28-300mm zooms which I use on a D60 and 20D. A little
slower than you're after though but Sigma lenses are great value for
the money.

Ron.

Ron Lacey
Murillo Ontario
ron@ronsfotos.com

Ron's Photos
http://ronsfotos.com

Ron's Cartoons
http://ronstoons.com

The Adventures of Ron and Dave
http://ronanddave.com

Paint Shop Pro Zero to Hero
http://www.friendsofed.com/books/1590592387/

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

In article <igilp015omolr84h0sot97smp3q8nd1bqq@4ax.com>,
YAG-ART <right@here.now> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:44:02 GMT, JC Dill <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:01:48 GMT, YAG-ART <right@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The D1 is an older Nikon body, the 20D is a Canon body, and the D2 is
>>>Nikon line.
>>
>>Sorry, I typo'd, I meant 1D and 2D.
>
>You can find used 1D's for a reasonable price, mainly from those that
>upgraded to the 1DMark2

That rather depends on your definition of "reasonable" ...

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

On 17 Nov 2004 00:05:51 -0500, johnf@panix.com (John Francis) wrote:

>In article <igilp015omolr84h0sot97smp3q8nd1bqq@4ax.com>,
>YAG-ART <right@here.now> wrote:
>>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:44:02 GMT, JC Dill <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:01:48 GMT, YAG-ART <right@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The D1 is an older Nikon body, the 20D is a Canon body, and the D2 is
>>>>Nikon line.
>>>
>>>Sorry, I typo'd, I meant 1D and 2D.
>>
>>You can find used 1D's for a reasonable price, mainly from those that
>>upgraded to the 1DMark2
>
>That rather depends on your definition of "reasonable" ...


Compared to what it was new

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

Read all the replies and you will see all the people who own Canon lenses
(or Nikon) will say their lenses perform very well. With the others, it is
either a love or hate relationship with more people hating them than loving
them. I tried a Sigma 28mm f1,8 and a Tamron 28-80 f2,8. The Sigma was
utter garbage and I am so glad it was damaged in a flood, I got full
replacement price instead of selling it for peanuts. The Tamron was better,
but not as good as a Canon lens. In retrospect, I could have kept that one
but I did not want to take a chance after being burned by the Sigma so I
returned it before the grace period was over and got a Canon 24-70 f2,8L.

Jean

"Voice Only" <voiceonly@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:129ip0lr9bllit4od1nuomp59k9sehuuct@4ax.com...
> I'm hoping that someone can shed some light (hmm) on this for me.
>
> I'm in the market for both a wide-zoom of roughly 24-70mm f/2.8 and a
longer
> zoom of 70-200mm f2.8. My camera is a Canon 10d.
>
> Obviously Canon makes the lens' I'm looking for, but at a very steep price
> tag for each (aka > $1000US).
>
> Are the lenses made by Canon that much more superior than the "pro" line
of
> lenses by say Tamron, Sigma, or others? Do these lesser expensive lenses
> stack up to the Canon, or should I just save up for the Canon?
>
> Any insights, actual comparisons would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!
>
> Thanks,
> VO
>
>