Alternatives to Canon lenses
Hi all,
I have a Canon EOS 400D which I bought about 14 months ago. It came with the 18-55mm kit lens. This lens has a very useful range but as I'm sure others have found the quality of the images it produces is quite poor, lacking clarity, sharpness and punch.
I'm visiting Tenerife in February and have decided I want to upgrade to a better quality wide angle lens in order to better capture the landscape. I suppose a zoom would be most economical and provide the greatest breadth of opportunity both for landscapes and other photography, and I would like to go for a pretty wide view as I have the smaller APS-C image sensor on my camera model.
Until recently I would probably have looked within the Canon own brand range of lenses, but I was made redundant at the beginning of December, so am trying to find out which brands of lenses I should look at to get a decent quality at an affordable price so as not to dig too deep into limited savings while I am unemployed. Also, looking at the Canon range they are a bit limited in the wide angle category.
I've been browsing the Sigma range of lenses and they seem to offer a good range. In particular I've seen these:
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10-20mmEX.htm < this goes very wide indeed. Possibly too wide for many applications?
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/widezoom/12-24mm.htm < possibly out of my price range but only £100 less than the closest Canon equivalent I can find: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF-S_10-22mm_f-3.5-4.5/index.asp - however can I justify paying £700 for the Canon lens which will only ever fit an EF-S mount? What if I progress to a full frame body in a couple of years?
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/widezoom/15-30mm.htm < again an expensive lens considering my circumstances, but would it be worth splashing out?
Can anyone comment on their quality or does it depend on the individual model? And are there other quality brands I should look at?
To give some additional info, I also have the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens which I use a fair bit, and a Tamron 55-200mm f/4-5.6 zoom which I use less frequently. I mainly enjoy shooting pictures of people but have been trying to improve my photography of places and things.
Many thanks for any advice.
I have a Canon EOS 400D which I bought about 14 months ago. It came with the 18-55mm kit lens. This lens has a very useful range but as I'm sure others have found the quality of the images it produces is quite poor, lacking clarity, sharpness and punch.
I'm visiting Tenerife in February and have decided I want to upgrade to a better quality wide angle lens in order to better capture the landscape. I suppose a zoom would be most economical and provide the greatest breadth of opportunity both for landscapes and other photography, and I would like to go for a pretty wide view as I have the smaller APS-C image sensor on my camera model.
Until recently I would probably have looked within the Canon own brand range of lenses, but I was made redundant at the beginning of December, so am trying to find out which brands of lenses I should look at to get a decent quality at an affordable price so as not to dig too deep into limited savings while I am unemployed. Also, looking at the Canon range they are a bit limited in the wide angle category.
I've been browsing the Sigma range of lenses and they seem to offer a good range. In particular I've seen these:
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10-20mmEX.htm < this goes very wide indeed. Possibly too wide for many applications?
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/widezoom/12-24mm.htm < possibly out of my price range but only £100 less than the closest Canon equivalent I can find: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF-S_10-22mm_f-3.5-4.5/index.asp - however can I justify paying £700 for the Canon lens which will only ever fit an EF-S mount? What if I progress to a full frame body in a couple of years?
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/widezoom/15-30mm.htm < again an expensive lens considering my circumstances, but would it be worth splashing out?
Can anyone comment on their quality or does it depend on the individual model? And are there other quality brands I should look at?
To give some additional info, I also have the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens which I use a fair bit, and a Tamron 55-200mm f/4-5.6 zoom which I use less frequently. I mainly enjoy shooting pictures of people but have been trying to improve my photography of places and things.
Many thanks for any advice.
0
Comments
If i have some serious $$ i would maybe buy canon L lenses because of the AF system and build, but for the image quality you dont have to stick to canon only.
edit* i see your looking for wide angle lenses. i mostly cary my 10-20 sigma and 28-75 tamron with me for hollidays and i think both are great lenses for the price. especially if you look in the second hand market. since you like the range of the kit lens, you could look at the tamron 17-50 2.8 which will increase your image quality a lot. the canon 18-55 2.8 lens is also great but expensive as hell.
I would look at the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8
If you want really wide, I have the Sigma 10-20 and am pleased with it. There are some minor distortions in the corners at 10mm, but only noticeable really if there are people in the corners. I am happy with it.
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
If you want an ultra wide then I would suggest then newer Tokina 11-16 f2.8 lens. It is a highly rated piece of glass that is optically equal to Canon's 10-22 and is a constant f2.8 from my own tests at least. I have seriously considered selling my 10-22 with the intent of picking up the 11-16.
Also consider that if you have any aspiration to own a full or fuller frame body in the future (i.e. 1D, 5D or 1Ds - as opposed to a 1.6x crop factor body as are the XXXD and XXD models), purchasing an EF and not an EF-S lens will safeguard your investment.
Much as you may love and value your present camera, bodies will come and go but good glass can last much longer.
J: In my experience I really haven't had those complaints regarding the Kit Lens (non-IS version). I've actually been quite happy with it (shooting all manner of subjects).
H: Admittedly, I will likely be replacing it at some point in the future. Maybe for something faster, or with a wider range (maybe just be getting the IS version).
J: It's entirely possible that you may have a dud copy though. Check this recent thread ("over there") regarding the kit lens (I'm R2D2)...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=29874331
H: Even though I'm quite happy with my lens' resolving power even wide open (as I posted in the other thread), I generally stop down a bit when shooting landscapes. This was shot at f11 @ ISO 400 (Canon 30D)...
J: Now I'm never really against anyone getting a new piece of kit. If nothing else, it can certainly serve to reinvigorate one's photography! That alone may be worth it. It's also critical that you trust the equipment that you are using (especially on trips/assignments, etc). That counts for a Lot.
H: Or perhaps your shooting style tends toward the wider end of the focal range, and maybe one of the 10-22/12-24 lenses would be just killer on your camera. Or maybe your People Shots would benefit from a faster maximum aperture. One of the f2.8 zooms might be right up your alley (or perhaps even a fast f1.4 or f2.0 Prime!).
J: The upshot is that I'm just saying to give the Kit lens another look. It's strong suit would in fact be small-aperture Landscapes. See if there's anything in the way you're shooting that might be contributing to the poor image quality that you're seeing (misfocusing, slow shutter speeds, high ISO, camera shake, lack of lens hood, etc). You might end up saving yourself a bundle.
H: If it really turns out to be a dog, then by all means get rid of it. The aforementioned Sigma (and Tamron) wide zooms really get pretty high grades by most folks.
Best of luck,
J&H
Of those, I'd recommend the Sigma 10-20, AKA Wigma by some.
It's the widest and may be the cheapest. It's made specifically for a cropped sensor and have very good optics. It may be the cheapest of the three choices you listed as well.
I think the other two are made for full frames, not as wide as the wigma, and do not take front filters. Unless you have plans to go to a full frame body soon, I'd probably avoid them and go with the wigma.
But the lens has some really nice things that may do the trick.
HSM
Good build quality
Good direct sunlight capabilities
good contrast
Yes my lens was focusing correct. And i also tried out my friends 10-20..It is not sharp!
Well that can be understandable looking at the extreme angles on 10mm.
For landscapes and such where sharpness is in my opinion not that important i say go.
The way i used it i could not stand it and i also found it to slow for my needs..
Pop it on a 350-400-450-40D whatever but use a flashgun and shoot concerts..That is where it would do the trick flawlessly imho.
Would recomend canon 10-22 or sigma 12-24 but you should know that no extreme wide angle lens is as sharp that you might want it to. ( maybe nikon 14-24? )
There are mixed reports regarding the sharpness of the lens, to be honest... it isn't the sharpest lens out there but to put it into perspective it is good for the money.
Go to the camera shop, take your camera, try a few lens, go home and review the images and then make your mind up.
This image was shot that way. Using a 30D, 24-105 f/4L at about 50mm, 14 exposures, hand-held. Though there are many pano stitching programs out there, and some good ones can be had for free ... I stitched it together in PS
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Many thanks for the interesting and considered replies so far (esp to J&H for the schizophrenic entertainment and the food for thought regarding my existing lens, which I will digest and consider).
It's great to get so many opinions and suggestions, although perhaps it might be simpler if everyone agreed on one or two lenses! My options seem to have expanded somewhat since the start of this thread.
Having read all of the above replies and also done some looking around elsewhere, I've got a longer list of candidates (prices indicated are mostly those I've seen on Amazon):
In the ultra-wide range:
SIGMA 10-20mm f/4-5.6 - £302 – lots of comments on this lens, veering towards the positive. I'm attracted to the range but slightly put off by comments on sharpness (on which I'm keen) and it's not the fastest of the lot by a long way. Definitely a candidate.
TAMRON 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 - £420 – excellent range. Not the fastest but not the slowest either. Not cheap. Need to investigate further to find out about its quality.
TAMRON 11-18mm F/4.5-5.6 - £353 – doesn't really seem to compete with the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 which is cheaper, or the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which is more expensive.
TOKINA 11-16mm f/2.8 - £433 - this seems to beat the Tamron 11-18 lens due to the f/2.8 aperture and apparently the build too. I read an extensive review of this lens here http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm and for Canon cameras this guy recommends going with the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 - but the Canon lens is a fair bit more expensive (£100 more) and between 2-4 stops slower depending on zoom. I do prefer a fast lens as I’m not great when it comes to camera shake and I like the creativity offered by narrow depth of field. On the down side this lens has such a short zoom range I've read it may as well be considered a fixed focal length lens! And despite being cheaper than the Canon it’s not exactly cheap.
TOKINA 12-24mm f/4 - £330 - a larger zoom range than the 11-16mm but a higher f/number too. However it's about £100 cheaper.
Or closer to my existing lens:
TAMRON 17-50mm f/2.8 - £277 – this would be almost a straight swap for my existing lens. Nice wide aperture. Something to consider following the above comments about its quality but if I want something wider it's out of the picture.
TOKINA 16-50mm f/2.8 - £490 – wow, almost twice the price of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Is it twice as good?? This comparison I found suggests the opposite: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nschaden/1332341897/
Unbeatable results using pano technique!
Takes some more time and planing, but the results if you do it right is just stunning!
Processing - PS CS3 put this thing together for me all by itself in about 30 minutes on my laptop. I just selected the images, clicked the mouse a couple of times, and left it to churn and burn. When I came back to the computer it was done. All that was left was to crop it to size and save the JPG (you don't want to know how large the JPG is:D).
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/2153699_6ikQu#111709365_GnWtY
I found the sharpness between the Canon and the Sigma comparable.
The Tokina 12-24 maybe sharper at the 24mm end but the CA and the lack of 10mm to sway me more towards the others.
I think with the exception of the Tokina 11-16, the resolving power of the other lenses are very comparable. The Tokina was easily better than the others and very quickly noticeable.
In regards to the Tamrons, the 11-18 was the first one and it never sold well b/c it was the most expensive third party lens, wasn't the widest, had the shortest range, and isn't built with the same quality feel with a plastic body/barrel, and a noisy AF motor with a rotating MF ring when you AF the lens. The 10-24 is a follow up to the 11-18. It offers a 10mm wide end and the longest range with good speed of f3.5 at the 10mm ens but from the initial shots I've seen of it on dpreview's forums, at 10mm's it seems to have a bit too much distortion and hence pretty soft corners.
In terms of the normal zooms like the Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 16-50mm zooms, to me, they are a different beast than the ultrawides, so I think you probably can't use the two classes of zooms interchangeably. The Tokina is a touch wider but costs a lot more than the Tamron and from what I've seen, not as sharp as the Tamron wide open at the wide end.
Lightrules has direct comparison of all those lenses here.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
If it was me and you wanted the most versatile ultrawide for the money, I'd go with the wigma, if you wanted the best resolving ultrawide at the cost of more moeny and less convienience in terms of zoom range, the tokina 11-16.
If you wanted a normal zoom, I'd probably recommend the Tamron for it's cheaper cost and lighter weight, and it's optics. I had one and it was a great lens optically. Easily in line with pro grade lenses.
H: Though sometimes NOT. :argue
J: What I was really thinking was that if the Kit Lens ended up working well enough for you (and there IS variation from copy to copy), that you might put that money toward yet another (type of) lens.
H: Like one of the (ultra fun) ultra wide zooms you mention.
J: Or the fast (and quick) 85mm f1.8. Great for people shooting.
H: Or perhaps a macro lens.
J: Or maybe even one of the new waterproof cams by (shhhhh) Oly or Pentax. (Can you say Snorkeling)
H: Oh yeah, two other things I forgot/wanted to mention...
#1. If you have a u/v filter on the lens, remove it. (Except in blowing sand/surf, etc). It can contribute to all three of the IQ problems that you mention.
#2. Best of luck in the Job Hunt. My Brother in Law got laid off in Nov. (lots of folks in the same boat).
Have fun on your trip!
J&H
In this gallery, 1,2 & 4 were taken with the kit lens, the rest with the 10-20.
I've done tests with my S10-20 against my BiL's C10-22 and could see no difference in quality when pixel peeping. The focusing speeds are very similar too, so I suggest there's something wrong with the s10-20 you handled.
To the OP: every time I use the 10-20, I'm impressed anew with the amazing depth of field.
Bugs
Spiders
Flowers