Sigma vs Canon?

[pprior]

One thing I don't understand is why do you get a great body and stick a crappy lens on it? The main point of DSLRs is (wait for it...) ......... to have the option of using DIFFERENT lenses!

Just remember one thing: A better lens on a worse body will give you muuuuch better pictures than a crappy lens on a good body.

+1 this this.

It's the GLASS that takes picture, the body just hangs off the back

Spend money on quality lenses, and upgrade bodies only when you have a specific need (i.e. better low ISO performance, faster FPS, better low light focus).

In general wide zoom range (i.e. 20-200+) is always indication of crap picture quality. At the very least you'll get horrific light gathering (f5.6 or even worse sometimes) and the quality will be nowhwere near a prime, or even a good quality L zoom. The benefit of course is wide range of focal distance at a low price and some convenience. to me, it's not worth it.

 

[fiercetiger224]

Ahh I agree with the last two posters. The glass is definitely the most important part of the camera! Remember that better light gathering with better optics equals awesome photos! If you grab better lenses, I guarantee you'll already be taking much better photos, and be getting more jobs because people will be more impressed with the photos that you take! So think of it like, better quality means better business.

 

[marioman38]

Well guys, if you've read through the thread you would have seen that I've decided on the EF-S 10-22mm and then saving for the 70-200mm f/4L aswell.

I have heard the 10-22mm uses "L" optics, but doesn't get the designation as it is EF-S mount.

I don't know why everyone hates superzooms so much. I have a Quantaray 28-200mm from my 35mm SLR that I put on my XTi, they weren't the greatest ever, but certainly miles better than my Canon P&S 8mp IS

 

[pprior]

We hate them because they suck. Unless you enjoy shooting at 5.6 aperture, which I certainly don't. You don't want advice, don't ask for it - you're wobbling with your decisions so I thought as a 20+ year veteran of photography I'd impart a bit of wisdom I've learned over time. But let me put it this way, until you've put some real glass on your camera and shot a few hundred frames and compared, just because you're satisified doesn't mean it doesn't get a LOT better.

My first quality lens was the 70-200L/2.8. When I got my first roll of pics back (yes, that was film) I was totally blown away at the bump in contrast, color and overall pic quality. I had been shooting typical kit lens quality before that (the kind of stuff you're talking about).

I guess it's like expensive cars, if you don't have the money, don't go shopping because once you drive one it's hard to go back to the econo-junk.

 

[marioman38]

Well I drive a 92 minivan with 302,380 miles (yea, its a toyota), so I suppose I shouldn't be looking at getting a new lens then

 

[pprior]

No, no, you're missing my point.

You were saying you hadn't seen anything wrong with your superzoom lens and what I'm saying is that you haven't yet shot with better glass so of course you won't see the limits yet.

I'm not advocating driving expensive cars - I don't myself. Maybe that was a poor analogy. Maybe a good quality computer monitor or something else would have been better. The point is, once you have experienced something of better quality, THEN you realize what you were missing.

Cheers

 

[marioman38]

kay, makes sense. Well my question originally was which of the three was better, knowing that none of them would be the best.

I have since taken the advice of you and others and am planning on

The EF-S 10-22mm which I have heard uses "L" glass.

And saving for the 70-200mm f/4L in the future.

If anyone else is interested, this review which compuwar posted the link to came to the conclusion that the Sigma and Tamron beat out the Canon nearly all around.

 

[fiercetiger224]

kay, makes sense. Well my question originally was which of the three was better, knowing that none of them would be the best.

I have since taken the advice of you and others and am planning on

The EF-S 10-22mm which I have heard uses "L" glass.

And saving for the 70-200mm f/4L in the future.

If anyone else is interested, this review which compuwar posted the link to came to the conclusion that the Sigma and Tamron beat out the Canon nearly all around.

The EF-S 10-22mm uses elements that are used in "L" glass lenses, but doesn't mean it is an L class lens.

I suggest you pick up a 17-40mm f4.0L lens instead. It has a constant aperture (vs 10-22mm which is 3.5-4.5). It won't be as wide on your 40D, but at least the IQ will be of L lens quality. Not sure what you really need a 10-22mm for; it's best for shooting architecture, etc. If you're going to be shooting people, etc, not the best choice, as you'll be finding yourself using the 22mm end of the lens. The distortion is fun, but will be boring if overused. Plus, you'll find the 10-22mm range limiting. Unless, you're into weird, stylized and distorted shots all the time...

 

[OreoCookie]

The EF-S 10-22mm which I have heard uses "L" glass.

The moinker `L' (which I've heard stands for luxury) differentiates lenses Canon officially considers pro-grade. The lack of the letter L, though, has little to do with lack of quality nor is the L a guarantee of good IQ.

If you don't have that much cash, I recommend you have a look at Tokina's 11-16 mm or 12-24 mm UW zooms. They're also cheaper and the built quality is much, much better as well.

The 70-200 mm zoom is probably the best lens in Canon's current line-up in terms of price/performance.

 

[gkarris]

It all goes back to talent and fully using the equipment...

I've gotten some nice shots with the "crappy kit lens".

OP - Check out this forum for some real-world examples and make your decision:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107

Hey folks, may be getting a job at the Apple Store - which means I can't post here anymore (but can lurk ).

Will have to start posting at the Canon forum site for photography stuff...

 

[NeXTCube]

The Canon 18-200 isn't THAT bad...

I actually own the Canon 18-200 IS; for what it is, it's not really that bad. Yes, there's distortion, and it's a little soft at the long end, but it's not the end of the world. However, with that said, the 18-200 IS is only an occasional use lens for me - pretty much only when I'm going into a situation where I only want to carry only one lens (e.g., taking the kids to Disney World). While the focus isn't as fast as it is on my USM lenses, it's certainly not embarassingly slow. And it's 1/2 stop faster than the Sigmas at the long end, FWIW.