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