I'ver never bought anything but canon lenses and am now curious about Sigma, etc.

Which particular lenses are regarded as some of the best and how would they compare to their canon conterparts?

thanx

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is the best overall..and at 380.00 you cant beat it...look at the detail you can see the people across the river running and riding..

Sigma 100-300 F4 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 are both very nice

The Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro is generally recognized as superb.

--Mike

I own the sigma 24-70 2.8 EX and man this thing rocks! However, it most definitely didn't when I first got it. My first copy (used with my XTi) was EXTREMELY soft, had terrible CA issues, and wouldn't focus for crap. So I sent it in to sigma and had it recalibrated (just had to pay one way shipping to NY) and it came back much sharper, but still no where close to what I considered an acceptable standard. I was considering sending it in again or just gettin rid of it when I got my dad's hand me down 5D - yeah, sweet. Anyways, I stuck my BigSig on that guy and was blown away! focus speeds were zippy, and pictures were on par with my dad's 16-35 2.8L II in terms of sharpness and color. So bottom line, your mileage may vary. I certainly don't know how it'll perform on a 40D.

SHOULD it perform like mine, I can tell you it will be pretty dang sharp at F2.8 and it cut your dang eyes from F4 up. It's also built like a tank - on par with the 70-200 2.8 in terms of granite-like feeling although not quite as smooth in the zoom/focus departments. focus is also pretty quick and accurate, just not silent. If you're willing to put in the extra work to get a good copy, definitely worth the money!

I've had Sigma's and wasn't overly impressed. Tamron's have been great, and Tokina was pretty good as well. In the end I've switched entirely to Canon though.

i had the tamron 28-75...then I got the canon 24-70. there was very little difference between the two lenses (color a bit better on the canon and the canon was wider).

i also owned a tokina 12-24 back in the day...that was a GREAT lens.

my sigma 30 1.4 was a giant turd.

I just purchased the Tamron 17-50. It took me quite a bit of convincing (I read about 60 hours worth of information on the 17-40L, 24-70L, and the 17-50), but you will love it if you get a good copy. I got mine locally at Best Buy because it was actually cheaper than online stores due to an in-store discount.

The sharpness is superb even at f/2.8. This test shot was given very minor sharpening PP:


The macro distance is around 10" at 50mm. It is seriously an amazing lens and very underrated when compared to a 17-40L or even the 24-70L (considering price).

Edited by Esquire08 on Jul 25, 2008 at 08:57 PM GMT

I love my Tamron 28-75. At one point I decided that I should get the Canon 24-70L. I did and hated the size and bulk and really couldn't see any improvement over my Tammy (which I had sadly already sold on this forum). I returned the Canon and bought another Tammy and haven't looked back.

Hey, I have that watch! Yours is cleaner than mine.

The Tokina 12-24. More than $200m less than the Canon 10-20mm. Great glass. If you don't "need" 10mm, get the Tokina.

MSC wrote:
Hey, I have that watch! Yours is cleaner than mine.

Got it for graduating college, I've somewhat babied it but it is definitely my daily. I added a Breitling but quickly sold it, and now should be adding a Rolex GMT-II ceramic for graduating law school.

I love watches

I have one of these waiting for me in Japan (going there soon) http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/267-voigtlander-sl-125mm-f25-apo-lanthar-test-report--review

I'm not sure yet but, from what I have seen, I expect it to be better than the Canon counterpart.

Esquire08 wrote:
MSC wrote:
Hey, I have that watch! Yours is cleaner than mine.

Got it for graduating college, I've somewhat babied it but it is definitely my daily. I added a Breitling but quickly sold it, and now should be adding a Rolex GMT-II ceramic for graduating law school.

I love watches

Yeah, I'm not a watch hound but can see the attraction...really high precision. That is my only and daily watch...tough as nails. For some reason, the face never seems to scratch no matter what happens to it. The band is scratchy and the face is not. Hey, far more important, congrats on law school!

The Tamron 90mm 2.8 I had was a great macro lens.

do your diligence and investigate. check out the reviews on this site, on 'the-digital-picture.com', photozone.com, and photodo.com to name a few.

prh

My biggest issue with most of these is the AF seems to be slow. I really wanted to like the Sigma 120-300 2.8 but the I need a responsive AF lens for sports. Otherwise that would be a great lens...good quality build, IQ, and the zoom range would be a perfect second body length.

RGS65 wrote:
The Tokina 12-24. More than $200m less than the Canon 10-20mm. Great glass. If you don't "need" 10mm, get the Tokina.

+1 on the "Tankina." And they're now making an 11-16 f2.8 based on the same carcass. Tokina uses Hoya glass in their manufacture.

prh5551 wrote:
do your diligence and investigate. check out the reviews on this site, on 'the-digital-picture.com', photozone.com, and photodo.com to name a few.

prh

Good point, all great places to do reseach...and Google too will give even more. Here and Digital-picture are places I go whenever starting to look.

Both my Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 150 are outstanding performers and are both highly regarded third party lenses. The Sigma 150 is one of the sharpest pieces I own, build is absolute top notch, color and contrast is great and bokeh is smooth and buttery--it also performs well as a standard 150mm tele. My Tammy 17-50 is extremely sharp, colors and contrast are good, bokeh is certainly acceptable, build is solid...the only downfall, IMO, is the focusing speed--specifically in low light (and its motor is a bit loud); OTOH for the price its a hard lens to beat--I may even call it unbeatable at its price point. I have also owned the Sigma 17-70, which was a great little lens, particularly for its performance to cost ratio.

As for comparisons, the Sigma 150 is often put against the Canon 100 and depending on what you plan on shooting, both are excellent choices. I decided on the 150 for its additional 50mm, lens hood and tripod collar and better build (some may argue).
The Tamron is compared directly to the Canon 17-55...in this case its really a no-brainer, if you've got the extra cash the Canon 17-55 is the better choice based on focusing speed, +5mmfl and additional IS. But as I said, its tough to beat the Tamron for $400...if you don't plan to shoot animate objects in low light, or high speed sports the lens will serve its purpose perfectly.

Sigma 30mm F1.4

Been working with one lately and it's godly, heard that there's lots of bad copies around though.

I had pretty good luck w/Sigma.
First lens was a 17-70 on a 20D. Very sharp, macro mode.
Had a 100-300 f4, razor sharp stop to stop & at f4.
The only Sigma I was less than enthusiastic about was the 80-400 w/OS.
Could be sharp, the the stutter-shutter was annoying.
I also have a Tamron 17-35 that is pretty good.

If you are selective, check the reviews, there are plenty of 3rd party lenses that will serve you well.

Dan

I am a fan of the third party lenses. Currently I am using a Tamron 17-50 2.8, and the 28-75 2.8 both are sharp, have great color and contrast and focus quickly. I also recently got the Sigma 50-150 2.8 and wow is it nice. Sharp fast and great color. I have also owned the Sigma 15-30 and a Tankina 19-35. All were great and I personally have no problems buying and using the nonCanon brands.

I have that watch too! Mine has a black face though.
If I had to say the best of all the third party lenses, it's got to be the Sigma 200-500 f2.8!!! However, as that costs the same as an upmarket family hatchback, the Tamron macros are very good - the 180mm really shines.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Tokina 12-24 f/4
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro

These are the best of the 3rd parties that I've owned, and I like them as well or better than any Canon lens in the same range.