Canon 20D lenses: Canon vs Sigma

Look at Tamron. Sigma is not a good choice, minimal optics and build
quality. Canon is excellent stuff buy pricy.
Tamron is a nice inbetween choice. I have been using Tamron for years with
fillm cameras first and now digital without a problem.

Greg
"Alex Vilner" wrote in message
om...
I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
complement the body with the lens.

Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
- Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
- Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269

I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
trick).

Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
are I might survive)....

Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
DR)
Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)

Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
$300!)
Sigma Cons: it is not Canon

Your opinions, please?

Thank you in advance!

--Alex

"Alex Vilner" wrote in message
om...
I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
complement the body with the lens.

Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
- Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
- Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269

I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
trick).

Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
are I might survive)....

Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
DR)
Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)

Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
$300!)
Sigma Cons: it is not Canon

Your opinions, please?

Thank you in advance!

--Alex

Despite the 'Sigma is junk' replies, Sigma DOES make good lenses. The
70-200 f/2.8 EX is one of their best. In this case, however, I would
recommend the Canon. Sigma is coming out with a 18-50 f/2.8 EX that looks
very promising, you may want to wait a bit yet. There's a review he
http://www.jasonlivingston.com/sigma-review/

IS is nice, but the focus speed on the Sigma should be a little better.

Mark

"Alex Vilner" wrote in message
om...
I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
complement the body with the lens.

Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
- Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
- Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269

I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
trick).

Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
are I might survive)....

Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
DR)
Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)

Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
$300!)
Sigma Cons: it is not Canon

Your opinions, please?

Thank you in advance!

--Alex

Despite the 'Sigma is junk' replies, Sigma DOES make good lenses. The
70-200 f/2.8 EX is one of their best. In this case, however, I would
recommend the Canon. Sigma is coming out with a 18-50 f/2.8 EX that looks
very promising, you may want to wait a bit yet. There's a review he
http://www.jasonlivingston.com/sigma-review/

IS is nice, but the focus speed on the Sigma should be a little better.

Mark

"Graeme Cogger" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
complement the body with the lens.

Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
- Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
- Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269

I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
trick).

Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
are I might survive)....

Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
DR)
Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)

Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
$300!)
Sigma Cons: it is not Canon

Your opinions, please?

I've not seen any reviews of either lens, but take a look at
the forums on
http://www.dpreview.com
There are a lot of user opinions on the Sigma, and a few
threads on the Canon. So far, most users are happy with the
Sigma, although it suffers from slight vignetting at 18mm, and
some distortion at the focal length extremes. Comments about
the Canon have so far not been that good - chromatic aberration
is a possible concern (the Sigma is good in this respect).
If it was up to me, and I had to choose right now, I'd get the
Sigma since I've seen nothing to suggest it's worth paying the
massive price hike for the Canon.
As usual, we've got a bunch of people saying 'buy the Canon'
without having any experience of either lens. Both companies
make some great, and some awful, lenses and the Sigma
compatibility issues are a pretty minor worry IMHO.

One thing I've been curious about, and queried those who posted negatives
about the Canon, was how they got images with a lens that is not yet on the
market. So far, none of them have responded to my doubts.
In my opinion, anyone speaking negatively of the Canon is either making up
their experience out of whole cloth, or using a preproduction version. I'd
wait until there are actual examples being tested by the reviewers at
DPReview, et al.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Mark B." wrote in message
...


Despite the 'Sigma is junk' replies, Sigma DOES make good lenses. The
70-200 f/2.8 EX is one of their best. In this case, however, I would
recommend the Canon. Sigma is coming out with a 18-50 f/2.8 EX that looks
very promising, you may want to wait a bit yet. There's a review he
http://www.jasonlivingston.com/sigma-review/

IS is nice, but the focus speed on the Sigma should be a little better.

Mark


Why would you say the focus speed on the Sigma should be better than the
Canon? The review you cite mentions that it lacks HSM, so it probably will
be slower.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Mark B." wrote in message
...


Despite the 'Sigma is junk' replies, Sigma DOES make good lenses. The
70-200 f/2.8 EX is one of their best. In this case, however, I would
recommend the Canon. Sigma is coming out with a 18-50 f/2.8 EX that looks
very promising, you may want to wait a bit yet. There's a review he
http://www.jasonlivingston.com/sigma-review/

IS is nice, but the focus speed on the Sigma should be a little better.

Mark


Why would you say the focus speed on the Sigma should be better than the
Canon? The review you cite mentions that it lacks HSM, so it probably will
be slower.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"grenner" wrote:

Look at Tamron. Sigma is not a good choice, minimal optics and build
quality. Canon is excellent stuff buy pricy.
Tamron is a nice inbetween choice. I have been using Tamron for years
with
fillm cameras first and now digital without a problem.

I tried that. My Tamron 28-75/2.8 has taken some killer images. Optically,
it's great. But:

1. The lens hood won't go on straight.
2. It hunts during focus more than expected. (This could be mistaken
expectations, though)
3. Build quality isn't up to the Canon lenses I own.
4. Less than 2 months after I bought it, it's now making grinding noises
during AF.

Never again.

Note to RA:
Randall, please accept my humble and abject appologies for thinking you were
over the top. On both the only buy Canon and only shoot RAW points, you are
exactly right.

Note to Annika:
By the way, I found a great way to rescue jpegs shot with the wrong white
balance: convert to B&W! As you've pointed out, all B&W is great artg.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"grenner" wrote:

Look at Tamron. Sigma is not a good choice, minimal optics and build
quality. Canon is excellent stuff buy pricy.
Tamron is a nice inbetween choice. I have been using Tamron for years
with
fillm cameras first and now digital without a problem.

I tried that. My Tamron 28-75/2.8 has taken some killer images. Optically,
it's great. But:

1. The lens hood won't go on straight.
2. It hunts during focus more than expected. (This could be mistaken
expectations, though)
3. Build quality isn't up to the Canon lenses I own.
4. Less than 2 months after I bought it, it's now making grinding noises
during AF.

Never again.

Note to RA:
Randall, please accept my humble and abject appologies for thinking you were
over the top. On both the only buy Canon and only shoot RAW points, you are
exactly right.

Note to Annika:
By the way, I found a great way to rescue jpegs shot with the wrong white
balance: convert to B&W! As you've pointed out, all B&W is great artg.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

You're asking whether you want a piece of junk Sigma lens.... that's a
troll, right? =)

You're asking whether you want a piece of junk Sigma lens.... that's a
troll, right? =)