Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?message=29026848&changemo...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Sigma/Tamron top of line Vs. Canon L: Canon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
I have a Canon 40D.
Looking for a good wide angle zoom.
I don't necessarily want to spend the $1000 for the canon 17-55 f2.8, although I realize, it's probably one of the best lenses.
I have seen some negative reviews on the 17-40L.
I need some experienced advice on Sigma and Tamron top of the line lenses and how they do with a Canon body.
I'm looking at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.
Any other wide angle zoom suggestions would be great.
What is the IQ difference?
Is the build quality really that big of a deal?
How are the mechanics on a Canon body?
Do they work well?
How does the Sigma aspherical (DG HSM, etc) compare with Canon L glass?
I will be shooting portraits, landscapes, group pictures.
Not really into rugged outdoor adventures where build quality may be more of a factor.
Thank you for any help.
--
|
|
|
AFAIK no 3rd party lens sends subject distance info to the EOS-system.
That may hinder the intended working of the flash system.
See E-TTL autoflash @ http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/infobank/flash/flash_basics.do
|
|
|
The great thing about L lens is not image quality
but weather sealing and great resale value
( not all L have weather seal )
You practically sell them with very little loss
even after years of usage....
the other lens are cheaper , but you pay for them in other ways :D
--
tommy photo diary
http://www.tommyleong.blogspot.com
|
|
I had the 17-40 f/4 and sent it in for calibration with the body (a 350D).
Once I did that, the results were outstanding.
I had the opportunity to buy a 20D with a 17-55 and 70-300 DO IS for basically $0 once I sold the XT and 17-40.
And I did, and don't regret that decision.
I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 17-40 again, especially after calibration.
You really can't go wrong with either choice, but don't wait to send it to Canon for adjustment if it's soft.
Bob.
|
|
|
Http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
Lightrules is the king of comparing 3rd party lenses with canons.
--
http://www.pbase.com/chibimike
|
|
Had the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX Macro for half a year.
Then sold and upgraded to 17-40 L because of upgrading from 350D to 1DMarkIII.
While the 18-50 was good, the 17-40 L outperforms it in any focal length.
The L glass has better resolution, both center and corner.
The color is also a bit better.
If build quality is a factor of consideration, then I would suggest choosing the L glass.
Tamron and Sigma are not in the same league.
Quote: :
>
I have a Canon 40D.
Looking for a good wide angle zoom.
I don't
> necessarily want to spend the $1000 for the canon 17-55 f2.8,
>
Although I realize, it's probably one of the best lenses.
I have seen
> some negative reviews on the 17-40L.
>
>
I need some experienced advice on Sigma and Tamron top of the line
>
Lenses and how they do with a Canon body.
I'm looking at the Tamron
>
17-50 f2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.
Any other wide angle zoom
>
Suggestions would be great.
>
>
What is the IQ difference?
Is the build quality really that big of a
>
Deal? How are the mechanics on a Canon body?
Do they work well?
How
> does the Sigma aspherical (DG HSM, etc) compare with Canon L glass?
>
>
I will be shooting portraits, landscapes, group pictures.
Not really
> into rugged outdoor adventures where build quality may be more of a
>
Factor. Thank you for any help.
>
>
>
--
>
|
|
I started with Tamron and then went to Sigma then finally replaced all of them with Canon.
I wish I had that money/time/opportunites back that I wasted on the other brands.
If you can afford it, do it.
|
|
I have some regrets regarding the 17-55IS.
I take sunset photos and this $1000 lens flares so badly is it completely unusable for them.
The flare also makes it very iffy for night scapes.
The lens is great for just about everything else, but the flare is absolutely disgraceful.
And don't get me started on the 75-300IS I bought when first starting out.
That lens was such a turd.
And the 50/1.8 is great for the money, but its focus accuracy is lousy.
I can focus lock, let the button up, focus lock again, let the button up, focus lock again, ....
After about 4 presses it will stop moving the focus, but it obviously was not truly focus locked in the first place.
--
http://www.pbase.com/chibimike
|
|
D Quote: :
> I started with Tamron and then went to Sigma then finally replaced
>
All of them with Canon.
I wish I had that money/time/opportunites
>
Back that I wasted on the other brands.
If you can afford it, do it.
You don't say what type of issues you had and what opportunities you wasted.
Without those its hard to quantify how much is being afforded for the price difference (key is that the difference doesn't come for free).
It's like an insurance policy - you can buy the most expensive one to cover everything, but often a cheaper one works for most of the needs.
When I compared the tamron and canon some time back, I found that the tamron was optically good enough for me as compared to the canon - quite neck to neck in my perception.
The only big thing canon brought to the table was the IS (which IMO is worth if you are willing to pay the price)
--
PicPocket
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html
Image control: Zoom out | Zoom 100% | Zoom in | Expand / Contract | New window
|
|
I have a Tamron 17-35mm Di and more recently a Canon 17-40L.
I use my Tamron when I don't want to take the more expensive lens out.
I am on my second Tamron, it literally fell apart on me.
But the Tamron is still a fine optical performer but it's build is no where near the L lens.
The Tamron suffers from flare a lot more, it has more barrel distortion but is slightly sharper in the centre and resolves detail better at f16.
But the wide open corners are shockingly blurry and vignette is heavy upto f11.
The Canon scores better wide open, but by f8 the two are optically very simular.
The Canon takes filters better and vigenettes less from a CPL.
The Tamron is a LOT cheaper than the Canon, so you can afford to break a few and still be £££/$$$ better off.
But if you need to rely on your gear in a professional capacity, then the Canon is simply a better all round lens.
I have several Sigma lenses.
Optically they can match Canon's finest zooms, but their build is heavy and sub-par to Canon's.
Their QC is worse than Canon but often a re-calibration at Sigma tech remedies a lot of this.
I have a Sigma 12-24 that is fantastic and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which easily matches anything from the Canon fold (except the lack of an IS unit).
Sigma typically produce slightly warmer images than Canon but this is just a colour interpretation.
Regards,
Gareth Cooper
--
http://www.GMCPhotographics.com (weddings)
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman (other stuff)
http://www.gazzajagman.deviantart.com
'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams
|
|
Quote: :
>
>
I have some regrets regarding the 17-55IS.
I take sunset photos and
>
This $1000 lens flares so badly is it completely unusable for them.
>
The flare also makes it very iffy for night scapes.
Do you use a lens hood?
Roberto
|
|
What is wrong with the 17-40L?
I had the 17-55/f2.8, but sold it to fund the 17-40L and a flash as I wanted to have UWA on the 5D.
In my opinion the 17-40L is superior to the 17-55 despite the last having less distortion and probably being a little sharper (I don't pixel peep much).
The 17-55 is in my opinion a little too sterile, for lack of a better way to describe it.
I think the 17-40L has more pleasing colors and contrast.
IMO it is a great little gem at a price that is significantly lower than most other L lenses.
As far as 3rd party lenses, all I have experience with is Sigma and they all have a yellowish cast over them.
Not a real problem when all your lenses are Sigma, but if you mix different brands of lenses, it can be a real b!tch to make them all look similar in post.
--
Gijs from The Netherlands
Canon 5D, 30D
EF 17-40/f4 L, EF 24-105/f4 L IS
Got the equipment, still looking for talent.
Please contact me if you find some cheap.
|
|
It is rare to find any exception to the adage you get what you pay for.
As for deciding is a wide angle good enough as opposed to what is best.
Shoot and print. Pixel peeping doesnt tell as much IMO on the WA as it does on the teles.
Print and decide is it good enough.
It can drive you to indecision and madness focusing on lens test and pixel peeping.
|
|
Http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...
...6&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=400
Good well respected site for lens comparison.
The 17-40 is now first on my "to get" list for my 1DII
--
Image control: Zoom out | Zoom 100% | Zoom in | Expand / Contract | New window
|
|
I started about 3 years ago with a Rebel XT and a tamron 18-200 zoom.
I thought the photos were good until I went to my first photo workshop and saw what good glasss can do.
Personally, I'd wait and buy the 17-55 if it's not in the budget now.
I bought the new Sigma 50 1.4 and it makes good photos, but the 17-55 is as good as or better and you get a range.
I'm not a Canon freak but I haven't had nearly as good of luck with 3rd party lenses vs.
Canon except the Sigma 18-200 OS is a decent walkaround lens.
Listen to the other responders and go with Canon.
Also my 17-40 works great.
|
|
|
|