Canon 20D lenses: Canon vs Sigma

just another opinion ...

Personally I wouldn't bother with the Sigma. I don't own any, never
have but as others have mentioned, there are many negatives in buying
other brand lenses. You're buying a great camera, buy some great
lenses!

Not to throw a wrench into your thoughts but ... remember that the
17mm end of the Canon lens you mention is not a very wide angle lens
(actually will be 27mm in 35mm comparison)

What I did when I bught my 10D was get the EF 28-135 IS USM and THAT
is one great lens. Not wide but a very good range and IS and excellent
quality and it's also $200 less. (I make this suggestion not knowing
much about the EF-S 17-85) I have added a couple "L" lenses to my
collection but still use the 28-135 IS as much as those and never
doubt how good the quality of my photos will be when using this lens.

Just something else to consider.


(Alex Vilner) wrote in message e.com...
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

just another opinion ...

Personally I wouldn't bother with the Sigma. I don't own any, never
have but as others have mentioned, there are many negatives in buying
other brand lenses. You're buying a great camera, buy some great
lenses!

Not to throw a wrench into your thoughts but ... remember that the
17mm end of the Canon lens you mention is not a very wide angle lens
(actually will be 27mm in 35mm comparison)

What I did when I bught my 10D was get the EF 28-135 IS USM and THAT
is one great lens. Not wide but a very good range and IS and excellent
quality and it's also $200 less. (I make this suggestion not knowing
much about the EF-S 17-85) I have added a couple "L" lenses to my
collection but still use the 28-135 IS as much as those and never
doubt how good the quality of my photos will be when using this lens.

Just something else to consider.


(Alex Vilner) wrote in message e.com...
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

In message ,
"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.

Some of Tamron's lenses are optically superior to Canon's similar
offerings. Their macros 90mm and 180mm are sharper than the Canon 100mm
and 180mm macros.

I own 12 EF-mount lenses, 10 Canons including 3 Ls, a Sigma 15-30, and
the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, and the Tamron is the second smoothest in
manual focusing (the 300mm f4L IS is smoother), and is clearly the
sharpest of the lot.

The Canon macros autofocus faster than the Tamrons, though.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
"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.

Some of Tamron's lenses are optically superior to Canon's similar
offerings. Their macros 90mm and 180mm are sharper than the Canon 100mm
and 180mm macros.

I own 12 EF-mount lenses, 10 Canons including 3 Ls, a Sigma 15-30, and
the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, and the Tamron is the second smoothest in
manual focusing (the 300mm f4L IS is smoother), and is clearly the
sharpest of the lot.

The Canon macros autofocus faster than the Tamrons, though.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
"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.

Some of Tamron's lenses are optically superior to Canon's similar
offerings. Their macros 90mm and 180mm are sharper than the Canon 100mm
and 180mm macros.

I own 12 EF-mount lenses, 10 Canons including 3 Ls, a Sigma 15-30, and
the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, and the Tamron is the second smoothest in
manual focusing (the 300mm f4L IS is smoother), and is clearly the
sharpest of the lot.

The Canon macros autofocus faster than the Tamrons, though.
--


John P Sheehy

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?

Thank you in advance!

--Alex

First, the 17-85 EFS IS is only $499 if you buy it with the 20D as a
kit. There are no reviews on it yet but its bound to be a lot better
than the Sigma.

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?

Thank you in advance!

--Alex

First, the 17-85 EFS IS is only $499 if you buy it with the 20D as a
kit. There are no reviews on it yet but its bound to be a lot better
than the Sigma.

Skip M wrote:

"Graeme Cogger" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


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.

Now that seems just downright unreasonable. Why should anyone wait for
facts before posting an opinion???

[If I used smileys, there'd be one some where near here.]
--

John McWilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Skip M wrote:

"Graeme Cogger" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


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.

Now that seems just downright unreasonable. Why should anyone wait for
facts before posting an opinion???

[If I used smileys, there'd be one some where near here.]
--

John McWilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

In article , Alex
Vilner wrote:

Your opinions, please?

Sigma = crap

Go with the Canon. It's all made together to work together.