Canon quality/price vs others for wide angle; help

How does it go for lens quality? I am a beginner.

Canon > Tamaron > Sigma > Quantaray ...? any others?

I have the Rebel kit lens and ordered the Canon 100 - 300 usm IS

would like a ultra wide zoom, like 17 - 40; or fixed wide angle thats pretty fast, for general use. I dont think usm is required for this. Just want decent optics, not great. Canon is just too much unless I find one used.

I ended up getting the 17-40 and have been very happy so far. I didn't want to spend the extra cash on the 2.8 and find its as sharp as I need, here is a sample



If you want to check out some other pictures I took with it go to:

http://www.pbase.com/prob1t/vegas_2004

Almost all the pictures from my trip were taken with this lens.

GHaze said:

How does it go for lens quality? I am a beginner.

Canon > Tamaron > Sigma > Quantaray ...? any others?

I have the Rebel kit lens and ordered the Canon 100 - 300 usm IS

would like a ultra wide zoom, like 17 - 40; or fixed wide angle
thats pretty fast, for general use. I dont think usm is required
for this. Just want decent optics, not great. Canon is just too
much unless I find one used.

Click to expand...

--
C.Ayers
http://www.pbase.com/prob1t

GHaze said:

How does it go for lens quality? I am a beginner.

Canon > Tamaron > Sigma > Quantaray ...? any others?

Click to expand...

You can't judge on brand alone. Every manufacturer has some winners and some 'also-rans'. Canon is king for compatibility, and probably has more winners in its lineup than anyone. Sigma's, and particularly Tamron's, LATER designs and quality seem to be rated higher. Tokina has some individual models with merit. I wouldn't bother with Quantaray, Vivitar or Phoenix for the most part. Your Kit lens will likely be better.

Finally, any particular lens you buy may be close to, or quite far from the designer's original spec (in other words, an exceptional or bad copy is always possible). Given that you get a 'good' copy...

The Canon 17-40L f4.0 is an exceptional lens in this range, as is the (pricey)16-35 f2.8.

The Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 has gotten some good feedback. I have this lens and I like it a lot, though I have not done a direct comparison between it and the 17-40L (others have, do a search).

I have no personal knowledge of the Sigma 17-35 lens, but a few sites do not rate it very highly (take this with a grain a salt).

The Sigma 15-30 gets rave reviews from some. Others say they've given it up for the Canon 17-40.

I have also seen mixed reviews on the Sigma 12-24 (mostly good). It is the only lens that covers this extremely wide range.

--
http://www.pbase.com/burnettjn

AYR said:

I ended up getting the 17-40 and have been very happy so far. I
didn't want to spend the extra cash on the 2.8 and find its as
sharp as I need, here is a sample



If you want to check out some other pictures I took with it go to:

http://www.pbase.com/prob1t/vegas_2004

Almost all the pictures from my trip were taken with this lens.

Click to expand...

Great shots with the 17-40 and 50 1.8. What settings did you use and were you using a tripod for all of them?

Dave

Dave S said:

AYR said:

I ended up getting the 17-40 and have been very happy so far. I
didn't want to spend the extra cash on the 2.8 and find its as
sharp as I need, here is a sample



If you want to check out some other pictures I took with it go to:

http://www.pbase.com/prob1t/vegas_2004

Almost all the pictures from my trip were taken with this lens.

Click to expand...

Great shots with the 17-40 and 50 1.8. What settings did you use
and were you using a tripod for all of them?

Dave

Click to expand...

The feinition is very good, you can see the power lines and their shadows. But, the is something strange wtih that photograph, the power lines start in the middle roller coaster.

--
Ian the pbase supporter.

irm said:

Dave S said:

AYR said:

I ended up getting the 17-40 and have been very happy so far. I
didn't want to spend the extra cash on the 2.8 and find its as
sharp as I need, here is a sample



If you want to check out some other pictures I took with it go to:

http://www.pbase.com/prob1t/vegas_2004

Almost all the pictures from my trip were taken with this lens.

Click to expand...

Great shots with the 17-40 and 50 1.8. What settings did you use
and were you using a tripod for all of them?

Dave

Click to expand...

The feinition is very good, you can see the power lines and their
shadows. But, the is something strange wtih that photograph, the
power lines start in the middle roller coaster.

--
Ian the pbase supporter.

Click to expand...

--
Ian the pbase supporter.

The ultimate in quality seems to be the Zeiss Distagon 21mm. But you're stuck with manual focus, buying an adapter ring, and it's awfully expensive for an f2.8 lens. I was very happy with my 17-40, and am quite happy with my 16-35. The 17-40 and 16-35 are equivalent in everything except speed, in my experience.

The 12-24 looks great from what I've seen. If I were starting over, I would go with it plus a 24/1.4L for low light, rather than the 16-35.

The Sigma 20/1.8 gets good reviews, but I've been unimpressed with the contrast and color rendition in sample shots.

The Canon primes at 24 and wider seem to get bad reviews, though I was quite pleased with the 24/1.4L I tried out.

Regards,

Paul

Thanks! Most were handheld except the ones I shot from the tower had the lens resting in the camera-hole cutout and a few of the Bellagio fountain show were on a tripod.

The setting on the New York, New York Picture were:
Handheld, ISO: 100, 1/250, F10, 30mm and Manual Mode, CW Metering

The rest use all different settings so it would take a while to list them all. Were there are others in particular you were interested in?

Dave S said:

AYR said:

I ended up getting the 17-40 and have been very happy so far. I
didn't want to spend the extra cash on the 2.8 and find its as
sharp as I need, here is a sample



If you want to check out some other pictures I took with it go to:

http://www.pbase.com/prob1t/vegas_2004

Almost all the pictures from my trip were taken with this lens.

Click to expand...

Great shots with the 17-40 and 50 1.8. What settings did you use
and were you using a tripod for all of them?

Dave

Click to expand...

--
C.Ayers
http://www.pbase.com/prob1t

Heh yeah, I cloned them out on the left side because they looked distracting but never bothered to take them out entirely. Lazy on my part I know...

irm said:

Dave S said:

AYR said:

I ended up getting the 17-40 and have been very happy so far. I
didn't want to spend the extra cash on the 2.8 and find its as
sharp as I need, here is a sample

If you want to check out some other pictures I took with it go to:

http://www.pbase.com/prob1t/vegas_2004

Almost all the pictures from my trip were taken with this lens.

Click to expand...

Great shots with the 17-40 and 50 1.8. What settings did you use
and were you using a tripod for all of them?

Dave

Click to expand...

The feinition is very good, you can see the power lines and their
shadows. But, the is something strange wtih that photograph, the
power lines start in the middle roller coaster.

--
Ian the pbase supporter.

Click to expand...

--
C.Ayers
http://www.pbase.com/prob1t

Those are very very good pictures. Thank you very much for sharing. Could you please give a little bit more information on these pictures: RAW or JPEGs, what post processing (color boost, sharpening etc.). Thanks again for these pictures, I really enjoed them.

AYR said:

I ended up getting the 17-40 and have been very happy so far. I
didn't want to spend the extra cash on the 2.8 and find its as
sharp as I need, here is a sample



If you want to check out some other pictures I took with it go to:

http://www.pbase.com/prob1t/vegas_2004

Almost all the pictures from my trip were taken with this lens.

Click to expand...

Thank you! Read this thread that I posted the other day. It has a sample of some the post-processing that I did on one of the canyon shots (which required by far the most work). Most of the other shots just needed minor tweaks (bright/contrast and USM). Hope this helps.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1005&message=8147453

de1992 said:

AYR said:

I ended up getting the 17-40 and have been very happy so far. I
didn't want to spend the extra cash on the 2.8 and find its as
sharp as I need, here is a sample

If you want to check out some other pictures I took with it go to:

http://www.pbase.com/prob1t/vegas_2004

Almost all the pictures from my trip were taken with this lens.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
C.Ayers
http://www.pbase.com/prob1t

Thanks a lot, it really helps. I have many Grand Canyon shots that I need to process. Your post is very informative and will help me a lot.

AYR said:

Thank you! Read this thread that I posted the other day. It has a
sample of some the post-processing that I did on one of the canyon
shots (which required by far the most work). Most of the other
shots just needed minor tweaks (bright/contrast and USM). Hope this
helps.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1005&message=8147453

Click to expand...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

--
10D, 24-70L, 70-200 F2.8L IS, 50mm F1.4, 550EX. Bogen 680B w/ 486RC2.
Nikon FE + collection of lenses.

This is based on my personal experience and nothing more. I have tried many lenses from several different manufacturers and in general I have found that Canon makes lenses of top notch quality. Usually when I have compared a Canon lens of particular focal length and aperture to other manufacturer’s lenses I have liked the Canon lenses better (based on optical performance and handling). This is not always the case but rather a general trend. An exception is the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super 2. I have found this lens to be superior to any of the Canon 75-300mm lenses. This is not to say that Sigma and other manufacturers don’t make some really great lenses. The Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro EX is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used and is but one of several good Sigma lenses. Canon lenses usually cost a significantly larger amount of money than those from 3rd party manufacturers. I think that a lot of time it is better to have whatever lens (focal length and aperture) that you want than to have the absolutely best lens. So if you are on a budget that makes it difficult to afford the Canon lenses, 3rd party lenses are usually a very good option. Just based on myself and people I know, the good 3rd party lenses are usually better than the skills of the people using them. (The people using them don’t yet have the skills to extract every iota of quality that these lenses are capable of providing).

Anyway, Sigma, Tamron and others do make some excellent lenses and they should not be overlooked when you are considering what lenses to buy. My best advice for you is to go to the store and try out as many different lenses as you can and see what lenses feel the best in your hands and operate to your satisfaction.

Greg