Tamron, Sigma, or Canon lens?

jennievii · June 15, 2009

I'm pretty sure I'm getting a Canon 50D and am trying to figure out what lens to get. These are ones I'm considering at the moment (and the prices):
Canon 24-70/2.8 $1190
Sigma 24-70/2.8 $899
Tamron 28-75/2.8 $499
The Canon is at least $300 more expensive, depending which one you look at, but I'm wondering if there's a reason it's more expensive other than that it has the name Canon on it. If you have any of these, do you recommend it? In case it makes any difference, this will be my primary lens and I will mainly be using it for portraits, but will be doing my first wedding this summer, which could be something I pursue a bit more.

Also, with f/2.8, would it really be necessary to have a lens with image stabilization?

amg2833 · June 16, 2009

I have the Tamron's brother, the 17-50 2.8, and I'm very happy with it. Sharp as a tack. It would be a little short for portraits, but I love the wide angle. I catch myself shooting wide a lot more often than long.

The Canon, although I've had no experience, is supposed to be one of the best lenses around. If you can dish out the extra cash, I'd drop it on that in a heartbeat.

samdodson · June 16, 2009

jennievii wrote:

I'm pretty sure I'm getting a Canon 50D and am trying to figure out what lens to get. These are ones I'm considering at the moment (and the prices):
Canon 24-70/2.8 $1190
Sigma 24-70/2.8 $899
Tamron 28-75/2.8 $499
The Canon is at least $300 more expensive, depending which one you look at, but I'm wondering if there's a reason it's more expensive other than that it has the name Canon on it. If you have any of these, do you recommend it? In case it makes any difference, this will be my primary lens and I will mainly be using it for portraits, but will be doing my first wedding this summer, which could be something I pursue a bit more.

Also, with f/2.8, would it really be necessary to have a lens with image stabilization?

When faced with the decision of Canon v. Tamron OR Sigma, you should absolutely choose CANON. The lenses you're looking at are professional-level lenses, but with Canon you'll experience better image and build quality.

I personally own the Canon 24-70 L and I would actually recommend you look into the Canon 16-35 II L instead.

Candid Arts · June 16, 2009

With the Canon 50D you can also get the EF-S lenses. I would seriously look at the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM. It's a great lens. I don't own it, but have used it, it's great. Another great lens for a great walk around lens, but it likes the light is the Canon 24-105mm F/4 L IS USM.

Some of the main differences between Canon lenses and third party lenses are:
speed of focusing, weather proofing, glass quality, features (IS, USM)... You pay a little more for the Canon lenses, especially the "L" lenses, but they are worth it if you can afford it. Personally, that's all I fill my bag with. However, I've heard some of the tamron lenses are quite nice, for a bit less money than a Canon brand lens. Some of the lenses the third parties make are just as good as a Canon brand lens for less money, however even in the same brand, some third party lenses, with the same focal length and aperture, just don't compare. Chromatic abberation, focusing speed, weather proofing, IS, stuff like that.

Hope that all helps.

Richard · June 16, 2009

I have the Tammy and love it. The image quality is excellent. Compared to the Canon, it is much lighter and much cheaper. However, it is slower to focus and will hunt in low light. This could be a drawback in wedding work. The range is slightly longer but not as wide. I think that on a crop body, the extra width of the Canon would be more useful than the greater reach of the Tammy. It doesn't have the build quality of an L lens, but comes with a six year warranty, which is nice. BTW, B&H and other reputable dealers sell it for about $100 less than the price you listed.

jennievii · June 16, 2009

All of the above comments are definitely making me lean toward getting the Canon. The last thing that I want is to get another lens and have regrets about it (because none are cheap!). I want to be really happy with the lens that I get so that I don't decide within a year that I need a different one, causing me to spend more than I could've spent if I just bought the Canon in the first place. Thanks for all the advice!

Art Scott · June 16, 2009

jennievii wrote:

All of the above comments are definitely making me lean toward getting the Canon. The last thing that I want is to get another lens and have regrets about it (because none are cheap!). I want to be really happy with the lens that I get so that I don't decide within a year that I need a different one, causing me to spend more than I could've spent if I just bought the Canon in the first place. Thanks for all the advice!

from my own experience with the listed lenses (Sigma 24-70 f2.8)....it is a fantastic lens .....sharp as a tack and the only drawback is the same as you would have with a canon lens.....it is not wide enuff on a crop body.....Iam dropping down to something in the16,17, or 18mm on the short end.......asi will need the width with shooting group shots and I am getting to the point that I do not want to shoe zoom any more.:D

Jane B. · June 16, 2009

Art Scott wrote:

from my own experience with the listed lenses (Sigma 24-70 f2.8)....it is a fantastic lens .....sharp as a tack and the only drawback is the same as you would have with a canon lens.....it is not wide enuff on a crop body.....Iam dropping down to something in the16,17, or 18mm on the short end.......asi will need the width with shooting group shots and I am getting to the point that I do not want to shoe zoom any more.:D

I agree about wanting a wider short end on a crop body! But, since I use an old Canon D60 I could not use the Canon 17-55 (it was/is out of my price range anyway). At first I compromised on an adapted kit lens which worked fine except for more error 5s (anyway I think that is the one that is cured by taking the lens off and reattaching it) even after cleaning contacts. It got me by for a lens range that I really wanted as I had been shooting with an original (NOT mark II) 28-70 Canon which is excellent BUT just not wide enough for me. When the budget loosened up I went for the 17-50 Tamron 2.8 and have been very happy with it. I was put off by the reports of re-chiping issues with Sigma lenes over the years for Canon. I don't think Art has shot Canon and that probably makes a difference in how he feels about Sigma.

Jane B.

divamum · June 16, 2009

jennievii wrote:

All of the above comments are definitely making me lean toward getting the Canon. The last thing that I want is to get another lens and have regrets about it (because none are cheap!). I want to be really happy with the lens that I get so that I don't decide within a year that I need a different one, causing me to spend more than I could've spent if I just bought the Canon in the first place. Thanks for all the advice!

If you have the $ to burn, then sure, Canon L is an awfully nice thing

BUT if you'd rather divert funds elsewhere, I can tell you I've had a fantastic experience with the Tamron 17-50, the 28-75's sibling lens. Sharp, sharp, sharp, focuses even in the dark and given I picked up a like-new copy for $300 it was a no-brainer in my case (and I think the 28-75 can be found 2ndhand for even a little less than that).

FWIW.

Art Scott · June 16, 2009

Jane B. wrote:

I don't think Art has shot Canon and that probably makes a difference in how he feels about Sigma.
Jane B.

I had only heard of any re-chipping from many years ago (at the beginning of the Digital age so to speak....noting in the last several years

YOU ARE CORRECT....I have never owned nor actually used any still photography Canon camera's.........of all the main stream brands I have shot them all but canon.....

the one consistency in my arsenal has been SIGMA lenses:D

rofl

NikonsandVstroms · June 16, 2009

I've had the Tamron in its Nikon flavor for a few months now and love it!

I use it on both the crop and a full frame body

On the crop body it's great for any sort of portrait photography, and I've had great luck with it outside, as well as in the studio, the optics are amazing

studio1972 · June 17, 2009

I would recommend the canon 17-55 2.8 plus a 100 2.0 for longer range shots and head & shoulder portraits. The 17-55 has IS which is very handy for weddings and the L lens doesn't have it.

Scott_Quier · June 18, 2009

You don't indicate what type of shooting you do, but here's the best I can do. The following observations are from actual owernship, as in I have these lenses

Consider:

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
- Pros
  - Cost - least expensive of the set. But you already knew this
  - Optics - about as sharp as they come
  - Weight - quite light, if that's important to you
  - Constant aperture - this is important, especially if you are shooting in rapidly changing action/event. You don't have to worry that your exposure is changing as you change your focal length.
  - I like this lens so much that it will be one of the last lenses I sell if I have to sell of my kit.
  - I have a friend who shoots weddings on a regular basis with just this lens - and he's good!
- Cons
  - Quite light construction. The entire lens, with the exception of the lens elements and electronics, is plastic. But, I've had mine three or four years and it's holding up quite well.
  - In darker settings and when mounted on a Canon 20D/30D/50D (yes any of these), it can tend to hunt for focus which may cause you to miss your shot - depending on what you are shooting. If you have time to let it hunt, then you won't have any significant issues with that.
  - Focal length range may be a bit long for indoor work - depending on what you are going to be doing with it.
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS
- Pros
  - IS - In darker settings, this can be important - depending on how fast your subject is moving.
  - Optics - some would say (and I can be counted in this group) that the glass is "L" grade. This lens is sharp from f/2.8 at least through f/11 and maybe beyond - but I'm sure of that aperture range.
  - On a crop sensor camera, this lens has about as perfect a focal length range as it's possible to get in a quality optic .... especially if you are interested in indoor work.
  - Constant aperture - see comment above.
- Cons
  - Build quality - the barrel is plastic. And, there are many (mostly pro wedding shooters) that have had to send the lens back for repair. Usually it's been the IS unit. For me, it was the zoom assembly.
  - Price - for a lens that is not an "L", the price is a little rich but, in my opinion, quite well worth it. If, for whatever reason, I lost the use of this lens I would be replacing it in a heartbeat.
Canon 24-105 f/4L IS
- Pros
  - This is an "L" lens and it shows in the build.
  - This is an "L" lens and it shows in the optics - this is my lens of choice for most indoor portrait work, even with the f/4 maximum aperture (which is constant).
  - To my mind, this makes an almost perfect outdoor walking around lens unless you are really into wide lenses. If you are shooting city architecture, this is probably not the first lens to consider. But, for people - hmmm not sure there is a better one unless it might be the 17-55 noted above.
- Cons
  - The maximum aperture is an f/4 - making it a little slow for indoor, ambient light photography. This is easily overcome with the addition of a little flash.
  - I don't know if it's just my lens or if it's characteristic of all of this model, but when I zoom, I have to re-focus .... my copy performs, in this respect, like one of the older "veri-focal" lenses rather than like a true zoom.

As to the question about f/2.8 vs IS - hmmm depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting sports and other, similar fast-moving action (and remembering that IS does not stop action) the IS will deliver minimum benefit. However, if you are photographing sedate, slow-moving subjects in darker environments, both the f/2.8 and IS will deliver huge benefits.

With my lens line-up, I don't have a need to acquire a 2x-7x lens and I'm glad I don't have to make the decision you are facing (though I did at one time

). Were I to move to Full-Frame (ie, the 5D2), I would be very strongly tempted to give the Siggy a long hard look. I've read some trash about this lens and I've read some very good reviews as well. In some instances, the new owners have had to send the lens back to Sigma for calibration. But, once returned the lens has proven to be a stellar performer. And, mounted on a 50D (or the 5D2 for that matter), you have the option of AF Microadjustment to smooth out any minor focusing issues.

Something else to consider .... the warranty offered by Sigma is quite a bit longer than is the one offered by either Canon or Tamron.

kat123 · June 19, 2009

Equipment Questions
Hi,
I'm working to get back into photograph with the intent to do this full time - portraits, events and eventually weddings. I need upgrade my canon camera and acquire a couple of lenses.

Of course I'm on a budget but would rather make one investment now instead of having to replace again soon.

Here is what I have...
Canon 10D
17mm-35mm 2.8
70mm-200mm 2.8
28mm-105mm 3.5/4.5 (I never use this lens and would like to upgrade)

Here is what I'm thinking:
5D Mark II - ($2699) or 50D ($1199) -
How long will the 50D last?
The value will continue to decrease - should I just take the plunge?
What other considerations for the 5D - CS4, cards and external hard drives, - does it work with aperture or just lightroom?

24-105mm f4 (Is there another mid range all purpose lens I should consider?

I'm open to any and all recommendations, thoughts and suggestions.
Thanks!

Tamron, Sigma, or Canon lens?

Comments