Tokina vs. Sigma vs. Canon lens

glad to "see" a familiar face . if you don't mind 3rd party i highly recommend the tamron 17-35 and 28-75....fast, sharp and will save you about $1500 over the canon L equivalents.

i may also recommend the canon 70-200L f4 which i get it i hope tomorrow .

take care,

ed

ed rader said:

highly recommend the tamron 17-35 and 28-75....fast, sharp and will
save you about $1500 over the canon L equivalents.

Click to expand...

With a big caveat... IF you get a good copy. I'm going through the calibration rigmarole right now with my Tamron 28-75, which is a mess from f2.8 to f3.5.

Today, I went to purchase a Canon 1.4x TC for my 70-200/2.8 IS and could not resist checking out the Canon 24-70L/2.8. I had previously debated on saving for the 24-70L, but opted to give the Tamron 28-75/2.8 a try, even though there were mixed reviews and seemingly constant concerns with getting a bad copy and having to send it back to be calibrated. My copy is very sharp, light (in weight and $$$$$$). Even though the Canon focused a small fraction of a second faster (but not much), I am very happy with the Tamron and honestly do not see myself ever upgrading to the Canon 24-70.
--
Richard

cool! I hope I can get one soon (they seem to be out of stock everywhere) and can get a good one like you...

if one is to believe this forum that caveat holds true for all brands. i've seen just as many complaints about the $1200 canon 24-70L as i've seen about the $350 tamron 28-75.

beside i know that don is the kind of guy looking for a bargain .

thankfully i got a good copy of the tamron the first time around...at least i am very happy with its performance.

good luck with your lens!

ed rader

Peru_Photog said:

I don't know how many times I shot a great composition and
regretting using a so-so lens. The lack of lens quality took
something from the composition. Or the lack of contrast and color
forced me to photo-shop it to the point of causing pixel damage.

It must have happened a thousand times over the years. Even as I
write this I look over at a large box above my desk filled with
awesome compositions that show so-so focus because of the use of
inferior lenses.

Sorry man, but you gotta know it takes both...a photog with a great
eye or luck, and a very good lens...there is no other way.

Click to expand...

I understand your point of view, but still don't agree with it. I've seen excellent work done with inferior camera/glass. Simply because the photographer behind the gear knows its limitations and finds ways to work around it and use the faults (softness, noise, whatever) in his behalf.

There are exceptions, of course. If you need ultra sharp photos (product photography, documental photography), of course you need good glass, which is not exactly the same thing as "only L glass".

I usually don't subscribe posts that divinize gear. But there are 'divine' photographers.

Just a different perspective of things, not a personal issue.

Best regards.

Peru_Photog said:

********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN
matter.

Click to expand...

--
...oooOOO{X}OOOooo...

Pedro Claro
Marinha Grande - Portugal

Alex01Net said:

Anybody? Any experience? Relative to the 18-55mm kit lens and the
17-40L Canon I just tried at the store... the 17-40L was very nice
indeed...

Click to expand...

From what I read in the thread start, how do you think when saying you want "everyday walk around" lenses, then list a few of which NONE do have a f-length coverage of such? (none had any wide setting at all)

A "normal to tele" might be a better designation of the lenses you listed, and of course that can, to, be a walkaround lens for some people...

A "standard zoom" as I see it, is a zoom with coverage from moderate wide to short tele, or maybe from moderate wide to a bit longer than "normal", and I think that's the standard definition if there is one...

--------------------------------------------------------

The 18-50/2,8EX is on its way into my bag...but yet I haven't tried it myself.

However, it seems, from everything I've read about it from owners, and from some tests, it's one of Sigma's upcoming "killers".QC looks to work in the line making this one, and it is reported by most commenters to be sturdy and ergonomically built and designed.

The FOTO magazine (Sweden), for one example, had it MTF tested just recently.
It came out deemed as "top class" & "high value".
They shot with it too - of course, with great results.

The MTF's were done at Hasselblad's plant in Gothenburg, as is the procedure for every lens tested for FOTO.
It showed very good sharpness at F5,6/8, and good even fully opened.

Vignetting is severe at full F-stop at 18mm, but goes down at other f-lengths and is low when stopped down.

It was reported being as good as or somewhat better than the Canon 17-40L by the way.

When FOTO tested the EOS 350/XT they did a comparison when they did the "max resolution in lines" for the camera.They got significantly higher resolution out of it with the 18-50EX than with the kit lens (as expected of course)

I'm expecting much from it, and if I do find this thread when I've used the lens for a while I will report what I think of it (or I may open a dedicated thread just to make a report...)

By the way:
The FOTO test included among others the EF-S 17-85 and the Sigma 18-125 zooms.

Both were very positively judged, and for the EF-S 17-85 they performed test of TWO saples because of the bad rumours that has been seen here and there.The FOTO test found that it's a very good lens, sharp and with good build if not L-class.

The same for the Sigma 18-125, very good generally, and at 50mm it is very sharp BOTH opened and stopped down, from center to edges.

Only at around 100-125 it is somewhat less sharp but still good, and overperforming Tamron's 18-200 wi´th a good margin at all f-lenghts
that both lenses cover.
The Tamron 18-200 was not highly judged at any F-length though.

All these FOTO/Hasselblad tests include shooting with the lenses, and do not solely rely on MTF-charts!

Good luck, finding YOUR favorite now !!! ;-)
--
Aim & Frame ;-)

I have asked myself tha same exact question (what zoom for general use should I buy ?).

Since I usually take tons of photos while on holiday ( 1000 for a 15 days trip), for me travelling light and convenience (= no lenses swapping on the field) are the most important things. By reviewing my past shots I also have found that most of them are towards the wide angle side, and only few on the telephoto side.

I would therefore choose the sigma 18-200 (315 €) or 18-125 (285 €), they are both reasonably cheap, wide (18mm with a 350XT = 29mm with a film camera), small and light, have good image quality, and are convenient. They also need a 62mm filter (I use a lot a polarizer + UV for protection), which is still small enough to be reasonably priced.

If you need a faster lens (and even a slightly better image quality) I would choose the sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (500 €) + some telephoto (i.e. sigma 70-200 f/2.8, 820 €). But this combo is more costly and less convenient to carry and use.

You could also consider to start with the 18-125 (or 18-200), spending the least amount of money, and once you feel your results are limited by the lens add to your setup the 18-50 and/or the 70-200 (or even Canon "L" glass).

For me the sigma 24-60 f/2.8 (with a 350 XT) would be too long for general use, however your style of photgraphy might be different from mine. Remeber that a wideangle picture can to some reasonable extent be digitally zoomed and reframed later on your computer (without visible loss of quality), the reverse is not possible.

I think that whatever of these lenses you will buy you can obtain good results: most of the time the quality is limited by the photographer's skills and NOT by the equipment. I have seen consistently wonderfull shots taken with a 200€ point&shoot camera and consistently very poor shots taken with expensive "L" glass: the difference was the man behind the camera!!