If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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? Any insights, actual comparisons would be GREATLY APPRECIATED! Thanks, VO I recently sold a 70~200 2.8 Canon lens (non IS) with my 10D. I replaced it with a Sigma 100~300 f4.0 lens. I had always used the Canon lens with a 1.4X multiplier which effectively reduced it's aperture to f4.0 anyway. The only difference I can detect is the Canon focus motor is quieter and a trifle faster than the Sigma's. Otherwise... Both of these lenses produce identical quality images. Both have identical flaws in how they resolve. For my money, the Sigma is definitely better value than the Canon. The flaws are not resolving detail in highlight and shadow of images shot at high ISO. Either the cameras (10D and 20D) both have this identical flaws or the lenses do. Right now my guess is stray light bouncing around inside the lens but time will tell. I also sold a 28~70 f2.8 Sigma lens and replaced it with the 20D 'kit' lens. The kit lens is OK for most of the time but it is not as good as the Sigma was. I intend in the next day or so to buy a medium zoom. I may even buy another Sigma. It was a mistake to have sold it. I hope this helps you decide. Douglas |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:01:48 GMT, YAG-ART wrote:
The D1 is an older Nikon body, the 20D is a Canon body, and the D2 is Nikon line. Sorry, I typo'd, I meant 1D and 2D. jc |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:44:02 GMT, JC Dill wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:01:48 GMT, YAG-ART wrote: The D1 is an older Nikon body, the 20D is a Canon body, and the D2 is Nikon line. Sorry, I typo'd, I meant 1D and 2D. You can find used 1D's for a reasonable price, mainly from those that upgraded to the 1DMark2 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
YAG-ART wrote: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:44:02 GMT, JC Dill wrote: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:01:48 GMT, YAG-ART wrote: The D1 is an older Nikon body, the 20D is a Canon body, and the D2 is Nikon line. Sorry, I typo'd, I meant 1D and 2D. You can find used 1D's for a reasonable price, mainly from those that upgraded to the 1DMark2 That rather depends on your definition of "reasonable" ... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Nunnya Bizniss" wrote in message
.131... "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. You call that agreeing?!? -- Colm |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Colm" wrote in :
You call that agreeing?!? Oops. My bad....Wasnt paying attention. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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! Other things being equal, the 70-200/2.8/IS will get shots which an f/4 or non-IS won't. The more you want these extra shots, the better value- for-money the lens will seem! -- Hil |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Read all the replies and you will see all the people who own Canon lenses
(or Nikon) will say their lenses perform very well. With the others, it is either a love or hate relationship with more people hating them than loving them. I tried a Sigma 28mm f1,8 and a Tamron 28-80 f2,8. The Sigma was utter garbage and I am so glad it was damaged in a flood, I got full replacement price instead of selling it for peanuts. The Tamron was better, but not as good as a Canon lens. In retrospect, I could have kept that one but I did not want to take a chance after being burned by the Sigma so I returned it before the grace period was over and got a Canon 24-70 f2,8L. Jean "Voice Only" a écrit dans le message de ... 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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Hils" wrote:
Other things being equal, the 70-200/2.8/IS will get shots which an f/4 or non-IS won't. The more you want these extra shots, the better value- for-money the lens will seem! OTOH, if you leave the 70-200 f/2.8 at home at due to bulk, or you are unwilling to scramble over rough terrain with the extra weight, you'll end up losing shots versus a smaller, lighter option. Subject intimidation can also cost you portrait shots. And that's before taking cost into account. Over the last 20 years, I've owned two different 80-200 f/2.8 lenses. Each was, and is, a fine tool capable of putting together shot sequences none of my other lenses can match. But more often than not, an 80-200 f/2.8 is my second or even third choice for any given task. -- Michael Benveniste -- Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thoughts on sigma tamron nikkor macros | Fred B. | Digital Photography | 2 | October 31st 04 06:56 PM |
Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 18 | October 17th 04 03:25 AM |
Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED vs. Sigma 70-300mm. Supra II Macro | D.R. | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 21st 04 11:30 PM |
Problems with Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Lens | Dave | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 13th 04 10:51 AM |
Recommendation for a Canon lens | [email protected] | Photographing Nature | 13 | July 8th 04 02:10 AM |