Lens suggestions: Tamron, Canon, Sigma, Tokina?
 

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

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?

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.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:13:49 -0000, lid wrote:

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?

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

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" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:13:49 -0000, lid
wrote:

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?

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

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. Canon L lenses are built for the long haul, almost all metal
and very rugged..other brands ( and Canon 'consumer' grade lenses) are much
more lightly built and probably not as tough, though they may well have fine
optics.
I would save for the Canon lenses, I did and I am very happy with my
choice...oh and the Canon L lenses have a much better resale value as well,
I sold my non IS 70-200 on Ebay after I upgraded for less than $100 loss
after using it almost a year..I was happy with that and the buyer was too.

--

Mikey S.
http://www.mike721.com


"Voice Only" wrote in message
...
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

Robert 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.

That's absolute rubbish. A soft lens produces soft images and even a cursory
inspection of the results will show that up.

--
Colm


"Robert" wrote in message
news:q0cmd.35592$V41.31572@attbi_s52...
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.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:00:13 -0500, "Mikey S." 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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:37:56 GMT, JC Dill wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:00:13 -0500, "Mikey S." 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.

The D1 is an older Nikon body, the 20D is a Canon body, and the D2 is
Nikon line.

"Robert" wrote in news:q0cmd.35592$V41.31572@attbi_s52:

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.

Agreed, to a point. Years ago when shooting with a Nikon F4 I was saddled
with a couple of Sigma zooms that providied me with some of the worst
optical quality I had seen since the original Minolta Maxxum optics. Got
rid of them and went with the real thing (Nikon)-Problems solved.

Currently I am shooting with a Canon 10D - My first foray into serious
digital shooting and I started with a 15-30mm f4 Sigma zoom. In a nutshell?
100% CRAP. Lens flare from hell at night, and a filter adapter that at the
15mm setting created a beautiful vignette affect.

I also had a Canon 70-300 zoom (Non-L series) that proved to be seriously
lacking in detail and contrast. I brought both back to the shop I got them
from, and got the Canon L 17-40 f4 and havent looked back since. Next
purchase will be a used L 200 f 2.8 from a friend of mine. I will no longer
look at Sigma and will be hard pressed to look at the other brands.