Relative quality of two lenses

[jared_kipe]

You mean they look like they were taken with a Sony CCD?

Many 18-55 reviews note what I've noted - a fine $100 lens. Many note that performance is just fine stopped up a bit. http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/. I'd recommend a better lens, but if the budget is tight, the 18-55 mk II is not a bad starting point.

So you'd recommend an L over the kit lens (or over the Sigma)?

The 18-55 isn't a good lens. I got a not so great Canon 28-105mm and after taking some pictures with that, vowed never to take pictures with the 18-55mm ever again. And so it has been.

Medium to high priced Sigma lenses are at least twice as cheap as Canon alternatives. One exception is the 10-22mm vs 10-20mm Sigma. Its only 35% savings or so. The chepo Sigma 18-125mm and 17-70mm sell for $235 and $350, but are leaps and bounds better than the canon 18-55 and 28-105 which is in the same price range.

 

[law guy]

The 18-55 isn't a good lens. I got a not so great Canon 28-105mm and after taking some pictures with that, vowed never to take pictures with the 18-55mm ever again. And so it has been.

Medium to high priced Sigma lenses are at least twice as cheap as Canon alternatives. One exception is the 10-22mm vs 10-20mm Sigma. Its only 35% savings or so. The chepo Sigma 18-125mm and 17-70mm sell for $235 and $350, but are leaps and bounds better than the canon 18-55 and 28-105 which is in the same price range.

I agree and disagree with Jared - not a fantastic lens, but certain a fine lens in may applications and just fine for $100.

http://homepage.mac.com/tjparadise/.Pictures/2006 Photographs/May 2006/IMG_0831.JPG

http://homepage.mac.com/tjparadise/.Pictures/2006 Photographs/Late April - Early May/IMG_0766.JPG

http://homepage.mac.com/tjparadise/.Pictures/2006 Photographs/Late April - Early May/IMG_0784.JPG

 

[jared_kipe]

I agree and disagree with Jared - not a fantastic lens, but certain a fine lens in may applications and just fine for $100.

http://homepage.mac.com/tjparadise/.Pictures/2006 Photographs/May 2006/IMG_0831.JPG

http://homepage.mac.com/tjparadise/.Pictures/2006 Photographs/Late April - Early May/IMG_0766.JPG

http://homepage.mac.com/tjparadise/.Pictures/2006 Photographs/Late April - Early May/IMG_0784.JPG

I think if $100 is all you have to spend, get a 50mm f1.8, I'm not a fan of prime lenses usually, but its a good lens for cheap. Much better than the 18-55mm. Law guy, do you have any other lenses? Its like sticking up for a dog you got at the pound when it keeps peeing on the carpet. "But honey, Butch only cost us $30..." If you pay postage I could send you my Sigma 24-70mm for a little while.

 

[law guy]

I think if $100 is all you have to spend, get a 50mm f1.8, I'm not a fan of prime lenses usually, but its a good lens for cheap. Much better than the 18-55mm. Law guy, do you have any other lenses? Its like sticking up for a dog you got at the pound when it keeps peeing on the carpet. "But honey, Butch only cost us $30..." If you pay postage I could send you my Sigma 24-70mm for a little while.

No, sadly, when I switched from Nikon to Canon after 10 years with the Nikon system, I made the move knowing that I'd have to rebuild my lens collection but that it would have to start with the kit lens for a few months (so my 18-55 is really a comparison of consumer nikkors out there like the 28-105 or 18-35 that I've had, and the Canon 28-135 IS I've used). I really do appreciate the offer on the use of the Sigma for awhile. I should have my 24-70 2.8L soon. At least that's the hope. My support for the poor little 18-55 is that it just really isn't that bad for a $100 kit zoom.

 

[jared_kipe]

No, sadly, when I switched from Nikon to Canon after 10 years with the Nikon system, I made the move knowing that I'd have to rebuild my lens collection but that it would have to start with the kit lens for a few months (so my 18-55 is really a comparison of consumer nikkors out there like the 28-105 that I've had, and the Canon 28-135 IS I've used). I really do appreciate the offer on the use of the Sigma for awhile. I should have my 24-70 2.8L soon. At least that's the hope. My support for the poor little 18-55 is that it just really isn't that bad for a $100 kit zoom.

Oh well then no need to try out my "crappy" Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 when you're getting an L soon. (if I were you I'd get the 24-105mmL that lens rocks)

I think Canon is sorta doing a disservice to people with that lens. For 100 bucks you get a lens, that ok. But for 200 bucks D70 users can get a much better lens (the 18-70mm). So if playing the price war is all you're after (like Dell) then the $100 kit lens is a better value. But I think the Canon 350D is a stronger camera than the D70, and I certainly think the 20D is much stronger. Which is why I always advocate buying the Canon but only the body, and shopping around for a lens that fits your needs. (I think the 18-55mm range is limiting too I guess)

 

[efoto]

I had the Canon 24-70 2.8L for a while too, found the performance for the price to be a poor deal. Perhaps it was the specific lens I had but I found that the Tamron 28-75 2.8 (which I currently have) for around $400 outperforms the L in many arenas, quite obviously price. That savings allowed me to get a 50 1.4 as well as a 580 flash, all in all a MUCH better setup in my mind all for the cost of that single lens.

I realize having all L glass is cool, sometimes some off-ers make a decent product though. For the price I don't think the Tamron can be touched honestly....I'd strongly suggest looking at it instead of that Canon 24-70L.

 

[jared_kipe]

I had the Canon 24-70 2.8L for a while too, found the performance for the price to be a poor deal. Perhaps it was the specific lens I had but I found that the Tamron 28-75 2.8 (which I currently have) for around $400 outperforms the L in many arenas, quite obviously price. That savings allowed me to get a 50 1.4 as well as a 580 flash, all in all a MUCH better setup in my mind all for the cost of that single lens.

I realize having all L glass is cool, sometimes some off-ers make a decent product though. For the price I don't think the Tamron can be touched honestly....I'd strongly suggest looking at it instead of that Canon 24-70L.

Thankyou, this is what I have always been saying. The only canon lenses I would want are ones with IS like the 24-105mm or 70-200mm. But I think I'll stay with sigma for a telephoto, the 100-300mm f4 is practically a perfect lens.

 

[efoto]

Thankyou, this is what I have always been saying. The only canon lenses I would want are ones with IS like the 24-105mm or 70-200mm. But I think I'll stay with sigma for a telephoto, the 100-300mm f4 is practically a perfect lens.

I did some in-shop tests at my local Norman Camera (good guys at my store that are happy to help and test) of the Sigma 24-70, the Canon 24-70L, and the Tamron 28-75 (all 2.8s) and the Tamron won hands down (we went through 3 Sigma's although I've heard that if you can get a good one it's a nice lens).

I plan to do the same tests later this summer when I'm ready to buy a 70-200....I'd really like the Canon L IS one, but I have to make sure it justifies its own price. Pitting it against a Sigma solely because there isn't much else out there of relative quality at that length. Planning to test the non-IS 2.8 out first to check glass and then have to decide if IS is worth the increase over the non-IS assuming I like the L better.

Anyway, enough ranting here ....I'm bored at work, sorry for double the characters needed to say what was said.

Edit: I love the avatar jared_kipe, lovely series

 

[law guy]

I had the Canon 24-70 2.8L for a while too, found the performance for the price to be a poor deal. Perhaps it was the specific lens I had but I found that the Tamron 28-75 2.8 (which I currently have) for around $400 outperforms the L in many arenas, quite obviously price. That savings allowed me to get a 50 1.4 as well as a 580 flash, all in all a MUCH better setup in my mind all for the cost of that single lens.

I realize having all L glass is cool, sometimes some off-ers make a decent product though. For the price I don't think the Tamron can be touched honestly....I'd strongly suggest looking at it instead of that Canon 24-70L.

Oh efoto and Jared, you upset the apple cart. I've read such good reviews and discussions (on POTN) of the 2.8L and wanted the 2.8 for the low light capability and the extra 4mm over Tamron for a little more general usability (get's me down to 38mm on my 1.6crop 30D), although I realize that the Sigma 24-70 covers the range and apperture, but without the weather sealing I was looking forward to for coastal shooting. (no, no, not implying the Sig was the least bit crappy by the way Jared). I have heard the same things about it being great if you get a good copy - always a bit of a risk with any lens, although I have more fear of the issue with the Sigma for some reason. The 24-105 is impressive (and has some size and weight advantages as well), I agree, if only it was a 2.8 for the no-flash indoor shooting.

All right - off to read Photo.net's review of the Tamron...

 

[jared_kipe]

Oh efoto and Jared, you upset the apple cart. I've read such good reviews and discussions (on POTN) of the 2.8L and wanted the 2.8 for the low light capability and the extra 4mm over Tamron for a little more general usability (get's me down to 38mm on my 1.6crop 30D), although I realize that the Sigma 24-70 covers the range and apperture, but without the weather sealing I was looking forward to for coastal shooting. (no, no, not implying the Sig was the least bit crappy by the way Jared). I have heard the same things about it being great if you get a good copy - always a bit of a risk with any lens, although I have more fear of the issue with the Sigma for some reason. The 24-105 is impressive (and has some size and weight advantages as well), I agree, if only it was a 2.8 for the no-flash indoor shooting.

All right - off to read Photo.net's review of the Tamron...

30D doesn't have weather sealing though

 

[law guy]

30D doesn't have weather sealing though

It's true, but I worry more about the zoom lens with the extending barrel than the body.

 

[efoto]

30D doesn't have weather sealing though

It's true, but I worry more about the zoom lens with the extending barrel than the body.

I would tend to agree with both of you here. While the 30D doesn't have weather sealing I would tend to be more concerned with a zoom lens than a body....but still, the fact is a fact so it is there.

I'm glad you are at least reading up on the Tamron, if you get the Canon L it is good glass, but at around $1200 compared to the Tamron's $350-400, I just couldn't justify it given the slight differences in color (and no differences in sharpness).

 

[jared_kipe]

I would tend to agree with both of you here. While the 30D doesn't have weather sealing I would tend to be more concerned with a zoom lens than a body....but still, the fact is a fact so it is there.

I'm glad you are at least reading up on the Tamron, if you get the Canon L it is good glass, but at around $1200 compared to the Tamron's $350-400, I just couldn't justify it given the slight differences in color (and no differences in sharpness).

If it gets into the Body it can get into the lens via the rear element. But I guess its unlikely for the occasional splash and what not.

 

[Mike Teezie]

I would tend to agree with both of you here. While the 30D doesn't have weather sealing I would tend to be more concerned with a zoom lens than a body....but still, the fact is a fact so it is there.

I'm glad you are at least reading up on the Tamron, if you get the Canon L it is good glass, but at around $1200 compared to the Tamron's $350-400, I just couldn't justify it given the slight differences in color (and no differences in sharpness).

You really can't see a difference in the Tamron and the L glass?

I read all the reviews that said that, so I bought the Tamron. I've been pretty happy with it, but because I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS - which is so ridiculously good - it makes me think I could get the same performance out of the 24-70L.

I wish I had the option of trying out the 24-70L, so I could decide for myself.

 

[efoto]

If it gets into the Body it can get into the lens via the rear element. But I guess its unlikely for the occasional splash and what not.

I completely agree. While I see a risk for both parts it just feels like a zoom lens would be at greater risk in light weather than the body (mainly because of downfall onto the zoom vs. top of body (which I'm just blindly assuming wouldn't get into the mounting area )

You really can't see a difference in the Tamron and the L glass?

I read all the reviews that said that, so I bought the Tamron. I've been pretty happy with it, but because I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS - which is so ridiculously good - it makes me think I could get the same performance out of the 24-70L.

I wish I had the option of trying out the 24-70L, so I could decide for myself.

First off, love the avatar

I didn't say I couldn't see any difference....at least I should have said that. The differences I saw for the price I paid was no where near justifiable in my mind. Sharpness was exactly the same, color was pretty damn close with a slight win to the L, and then features like USM and weather sealing are nice....not required per-say, both nice but they didn't justify the difference.

One second....okay, I just checked my receipt and here is what I found:
Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di - $354.95
Canon Speedlite 580EX - $388.00
RETURN - Canon EF24-70 F/2.8L - $1159.95
and off of a separate sheet:
Canon 50 F/1.4USM - $309.95

So, my argument is simply this;
$1160 for a great lens that shoots 24-70 wonderfully with great color
OR
$1053 for a great lens that shoots 28-75 wonderfullly (I'll leave color out) AND the top shoe-mounted flash Canon sells AND an ultra-fast/sharp 50 prime (which I find I use a TON for anything indoor/family)

To me that just wasn't even a question, because the Tamron was THAT GOOD. If there were major differences I would have thought a bit more about it....but since it was so close, no contest. Had I gone for the L it would be the only lens I have right now...and for some time due to its price. Instead I have a very similar focal range with the addition of a great flash and a fast 50 prime

 

[law guy]

First off, love the avatar

I concur.