I have a 28-135 IS canon lens I'm using now on my d60, looking to purchase another lens , Unfortunatelly cannot afford to buy 16-35 L lens so for now I'm looking at 15-30 sigma or 20-40 tamron, Wondering if anyone there can give me an expert advice of which one I should buy, greatly appreciated !!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
15-30 or 20-40
- Thread starter DON M.
- Start date
Ray Soemarsono
Forum Enthusiast
I have a Sigma 15-30mm and it's a very important focal length range for me. With the multiplication factor of 1.6x on the D60, your effective zoom range will be 24-48mm. Bare minimum if you like wide angle shots. The Tamron effective range will be 32-64mm. Hardly a wide angle anymore. It definetely depends on what you shoot the most.
If you want to see the Sigma 15-30mm in action, please check out my earlier thread here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4030437
Hope this helps.
RAY
If you want to see the Sigma 15-30mm in action, please check out my earlier thread here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4030437
Hope this helps.
RAY
G
Gavin Shurmer
Guest
Another contender is the Sigma 17-35.
It hasn't had great reviews here. I only had it on loan for a couple of weeks and found some positives:
Regards
Gavin.
It hasn't had great reviews here. I only had it on loan for a couple of weeks and found some positives:
- much smaller and lighter than 15-30.
- takes filters without hassle
- HSM means silky smooth and quiet focussing. 15-30 sounds like a tractor in comparison.
- Doesn't block the on board flash at narrower focal lengths (the 15-30 blocks flash at ALL focal lengths - need to use flash gun to use indoors (at least in my house!)).
- Wider view - 24 vs 27.2.
- Gets positive reviews here.
Regards
Gavin.
Matthias Blum
Well-known member
In combination with the D60 it's a perfect lens. In some positions
(CA for instamnce) it is better than the Canon 16-35.
Best wishes
Matthias
(CA for instamnce) it is better than the Canon 16-35.
Best wishes
Matthias
Tillman Kleinhans
Forum Enthusiast
Just got a D60 (recently) and having a 28-135 and 20mm Canon lenses went for the Sigma 17-35. However, after two returned examples - soft until well stopped down- I got the Sigma 15-30. The reduced 2mm of focal length is great and the quality is fine, especially when stopped down 1 stop. However I was not prepared for the size of this thing! Longer than the 28-135 and probably heavier. The fixed hood is a pain as it makes the lens even longer, but you can see why it's needed. The front element is really bulbous. However, I have kept it because of its very useful range of focal length and its optical quality. The better of the 17-35 Sigmas was so soft that you could spot it easily with the image about 8" x 6" on a monitor, even with the image being taken at F8!
Tillman Kleinhans
http://www.tkimages.co.uk
Tillman Kleinhans
http://www.tkimages.co.uk
Hi,
I have seen very good 15-30's, but also very bad ones.
Sigma aparantly has a problem with consistant quality.
I have not read any good reviews from the Tamron too...
I tried the Cosina 19-35, that was a waste of money!
I now have a Canon 20-35USM. Not really wide on a D30/60, but very satisfying to me!
Bas
I have seen very good 15-30's, but also very bad ones.
Sigma aparantly has a problem with consistant quality.
I have not read any good reviews from the Tamron too...
I tried the Cosina 19-35, that was a waste of money!
I now have a Canon 20-35USM. Not really wide on a D30/60, but very satisfying to me!
Bas
iride1966
Active member
How does this forum feel about the Canon 20-35USM compared to the Sigma as far as sharpnes, color and contrast? I'm not comparing there range, just their quality. I have heard so many mixed reviews about the Sigma that I still lean away from it. (I know most on this forum love it). I would really be interested in how the Canon stacks up against it. Any opinions would be appreciated.
I have had nothing but problems with the 15-30. Just got my D60 and 28-135. Thought the 15-30 would be great addition as you suggested. Unfortunatly, the first one I got didn't work at all. The motor was DOA. Returned to Discount Camera Club in NY (they were very helpful) and got a new one. I got the new one home and did some tests and found it unusable, and I am not even a pro. At 15 degrees and f3.5 the entire picture looks out of focus. I found very little to like until you get to about f8. Even then it's not as good as my Canon. It also drops off at 30 degrees. The problem is, that there was not a predictable result in all my tests.
Frankly, I am returning the product and plan to go with the Canon 20-35. It's not as good a solution but I can't justify the $1200 for L glass.
My conclusion is that some of the Sigma products are good but their quality is so variable that it's not worth the effort.
Hope this helps.
Malcolm
Frankly, I am returning the product and plan to go with the Canon 20-35. It's not as good a solution but I can't justify the $1200 for L glass.
My conclusion is that some of the Sigma products are good but their quality is so variable that it's not worth the effort.
Hope this helps.
Malcolm
Adam-T
Forum Pro
From the one I tried, The Canon 20-35USM falls into the same bracket as the 28-105, 24-85 and 28-135IS (its from the same stable), in otherwords, good value for money, well made, but flawed and really nothing special as you'd expect for the price..
Like early 28-105s it has a 5-blade Iris which leads to odd Bokeh - isn't too hot for sharpness wide open like the 24-85 - and was a bit sluggish focussing like (though not as bad as) the 28-135IS..
I'd choose one over the horrible unreliable Sigma 17-35EX (which is just totally "Pants"), the old Tokina 20-35 F3.5-4.5 (which performs the same as the Canon optically and is better made than a 17-35L but has a really nasty slow DC motor) or the Tamron 20-35 (which I tried briefly and seemed to be like a cheaply made copy of the old Tokina with similar performance) ---
BUT I doubt I'd take one over the Sigma 15-30, none of the lenses above are much good for flare - I'd have a 16-35L first (which I AM getting), the Sigma second and the Canon 20-35USM next - the rest are just also rans and old 20-35Ls are like hens teeth or overpriced on the used market ruling them out.
--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60, EOS7
My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855
Like early 28-105s it has a 5-blade Iris which leads to odd Bokeh - isn't too hot for sharpness wide open like the 24-85 - and was a bit sluggish focussing like (though not as bad as) the 28-135IS..
I'd choose one over the horrible unreliable Sigma 17-35EX (which is just totally "Pants"), the old Tokina 20-35 F3.5-4.5 (which performs the same as the Canon optically and is better made than a 17-35L but has a really nasty slow DC motor) or the Tamron 20-35 (which I tried briefly and seemed to be like a cheaply made copy of the old Tokina with similar performance) ---
BUT I doubt I'd take one over the Sigma 15-30, none of the lenses above are much good for flare - I'd have a 16-35L first (which I AM getting), the Sigma second and the Canon 20-35USM next - the rest are just also rans and old 20-35Ls are like hens teeth or overpriced on the used market ruling them out.
--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60, EOS7
My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855
ihv
Leading Member
It's even so big that you can't use it with built-in flash at 15mm (it creates a quite large shadow at the bottom of picture). But as for quality, I'm very pleased with it (especially considered the money I spent on it).
iride1966
Active member
Thank you for the informative post. That was the kind of response I was looking for.
From the one I tried, The Canon 20-35USM falls into the same
bracket as the 28-105, 24-85 and 28-135IS (its from the same
stable), in otherwords, good value for money, well made, but flawed
and really nothing special as you'd expect for the price..
Like early 28-105s it has a 5-blade Iris which leads to odd Bokeh -
isn't too hot for sharpness wide open like the 24-85 - and was a
bit sluggish focussing like (though not as bad as) the 28-135IS..
I'd choose one over the horrible unreliable Sigma 17-35EX (which is
just totally "Pants"), the old Tokina 20-35 F3.5-4.5 (which
performs the same as the Canon optically and is better made than a
17-35L but has a really nasty slow DC motor) or the Tamron 20-35
(which I tried briefly and seemed to be like a cheaply made copy of
the old Tokina with similar performance) ---
BUT I doubt I'd take one over the Sigma 15-30, none of the lenses
above are much good for flare - I'd have a 16-35L first (which I AM
getting), the Sigma second and the Canon 20-35USM next - the rest
are just also rans and old 20-35Ls are like hens teeth or
overpriced on the used market ruling them out.
--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60, EOS7
My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum