Tamron/Sigma vs Canon Lenses
katieh
Registered Users Posts: 8 Beginner grinner
I'm still pretty new at all of this photography stuff. I just purchased a 40D from a friend and just ordered a new flash. My next move is to upgrade to some better lenses. I'm usually the type of person where I'll only buy Canon and spend the extra money because I find you get what you pay for. But my husband and I are finding that a lot of what I want I can only find in the Tamron or Sigma lenses. We are just not familiar with how they rate against the same Canon lenses.
Right now we are looking at more portrait style lenses in an L glass form. I would prefer to have IS, and that is the big problem we are finding is that a lot of the Canon L glass doesn't have IS, but some of the Tamron and Sigma lenses do. One lens that we found that was what we wanted in Canon without IS, all of the reviews said it was heavy and would be better with IS...
I just don't want to spend all the money you spend on L glass and not be happy with it.
Any suggestions?
Also, how do the EFS lenses rate against the L glass lenses? I know everyone suggests 70-200 L glass with IS from Canon, but with what I usually use, the 70-200 is too much more me at this point...especially when I start studio stuff considering my space.
Help. :dunno
Right now we are looking at more portrait style lenses in an L glass form. I would prefer to have IS, and that is the big problem we are finding is that a lot of the Canon L glass doesn't have IS, but some of the Tamron and Sigma lenses do. One lens that we found that was what we wanted in Canon without IS, all of the reviews said it was heavy and would be better with IS...
I just don't want to spend all the money you spend on L glass and not be happy with it.
Any suggestions?
Also, how do the EFS lenses rate against the L glass lenses? I know everyone suggests 70-200 L glass with IS from Canon, but with what I usually use, the 70-200 is too much more me at this point...especially when I start studio stuff considering my space.
Help. :dunno
0
Comments
For the first group, which is pretty tight to the head, on a crop 1.6x camera (like the Canon 40D) I prefer to use a longer focal length, generally 85mm or more. A 50mm lens will do just fine in smaller spaces for most poses.
For the second group I would generally use 50mm or so. A 35mm lens on a crop camera can do in a smaller room.
For groups and when you want to record a larger scene, I recommend a standard zoom of 17-55mm(ish). The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is about as good as it gets for this use. Image quality is very much "L" level and it's perfectly suited for professional applications. It's one of few of my lenses that I would quickly replace if anything happened to it.
Large aperture primes allow more control over DOF, which is important for flexibility and controlling background elements.
Stabilization is not all that important for most portraiture, because it only impacts camera shake. It has no impact on the subject. A better strategy is to use electronic flash and faster shutter speeds, which will impact both camera shake and subject motion.
I suggest starting with the EF-S 17-55mmIS and then add a couple of primes for better DOF control. I use the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM and the EF 135mm, f2 USM for both crop and FF bodies and they are very nice companions to the EF-S 17-55mm.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
2 things come to mind right off.
1. Rent and try.
2. Make CERTAIN to buy from a reputable source so you can send it back if you do not like the lens.
oh, and 3...if 70-200 isn't going to work in your space...you may need to consider and read up on distortion regarding shooting close! like here: http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/index.htm
I use 24-70 L for portraits for both weddings and studio (but I have FF so this may not be the best choice for you) and also 50mm F1.2
I have never used 3rd party lenses so I can't comment on those
But is "what you pay for" what you actually need? My point here being that yup, L glass can be fantastic, but some of the 3rd-party choices do indeed offer comparable results at a much lower cost and if you don't need the weather-sealing, professional build-quality and other L attributes... you can get equal results for a fraction of the cost. "Third party" doesn't always mean "bad" (and in some cases means "very very good indeed"!)
Case in point, the Tamron 17-50. Image quality rivals the comparable Canon lenses for sharpness, contrast and colour. Where it is different from L glass is in build quality (no weather-sealing like the L's - but will you be shooting in environments which need it?) and speed/silence of autofocus - Canon's USM is zippier, although I found for typical portrait use the Tamron was more than sufficient (it's shooting sports or in extreme low-light conditions where it falls short of the Canon). Until I purchased my 24-70L - a purchase made largely for the focal length (I wanted the longer end) and because I often shoot theatre/performances where light levels are an issue - I was 1000000% happy with the Tamron, and it's a fabulous value for money. I gather the MkI is preferable to the MkII, even though the MkII has IS (VC, in Tamron-speak, I believe)
One other thing to consider is that no lens purchase has to be "for life" - it's not that difficult to trade-in or sell most of the popular lenses. What you need/want now may not be what you need/want in a year; I have certainly found it to be the case that as my skills grew, my needs changed. By buying carefully - often used or refurbished from reputable dealers (eg Adorama etc) - I've been able to tailor my gear collection to my needs over time with no significant loss. Not everybody prefers to do it this way, but it is definitely an option and one I've found worked much better for me than simply jumping to "what everybody says is the best". Frankly, until I got my head wrapped around the technical side of things, I couldn't have used the high-end gear as effectively as I could once I was ready for it!
All of that said, for your needs it does sound as though the Canon 17-55is might be ideal if you have the $ to spend on it; the Tamron is a reasonable choice if you need to save pennies or stretch to add other items. With a couple of fast primes in addition to the standard zoom (eg 50mm 1.4 - either Canon or Sigmalux - the Canon 85 1.8 or the yummy nothing-like-it-you-won't-regret-it-no-matter-what-it-costs 135L 2.0) you'll have a good setup for portraits and events
Even if you are gentle on your gear, usually the third-party stuff will wear out after a few years, or at least you'll begin to feel its inadequacies and you'll lust for an upgrade. Maybe that's the right decision for the short-term, but in the long run it will cost you more.
Here are a few pointers off the top of my head:
* Tamron lenses, aside from a SINGLE new version of their 70-200, do NOT have the current generation of autofocus technology. They are all still using the simple mechanical type of autofocus, which can be very noisy, less accurate in certain conditions, and in general just more annoying to use compared to a real USM lens. Therefore, I usually just don't recommend Tamron lenses, period.
* Sigma lenses on the other hand DO have HSM technology, which is about as good as Canon's USM autofocus. Some people claim that Sigma's HSM isn't as accurate as Canon's USM, but then again Canon isn't 100% truthful about USM either; some USM lenses are actually still the old "ghetto" type of autofocus, which is not as snappy and accurate. (The 50 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4, for example, have the oldschool type USM.) Personally, I have owned two or three Sigma HSM lenses and they've all worked amazingly for me.
* Sigma does make an "EX" grade of lens, which isn't exactly L quality but is certainly in the same class with respect to durability. I heavily, HEAVILY abused at least two Sigma EX lenses for about 5 years each, and both of them took the abuse without skipping a beat.
* And FINALLY, the REASON I bought the Sigma lenses in the first place was simple: Canon and Nikon simply didn't offer a comparable lens option! The two lenses that I favor are the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro, and the 50-150 2.8 DC. Plain and simple, there are no true equivalent lenses in that range. Canon / Nikon never got around to making a crop-sensor version of the 70-200 2.8, and Canon's / Nikon's longest f/2.8 macro lens is ~100mm. The Sigma 50-150 2.8 in particular is a real gem. It's about a pound lighter than the Canon 70-200 2.8, over a thousand dollars cheaper in some cases, and it's still built rock-solid with snappy, reliable autofocus. Locally I have so many friends who have ended up purchasing the Sigma 50-150 that there is actually a shortage of used copies, which also seems to be the case onlline. When a lens is hard to find even in used condition, you know it's a GOOD lens.
...Which brings me to my conclusion: I have effectively used third-party lenses to "fill in the gaps". I'm sure if Canon / Nikon ever DID make a 50-150 2.8, it might totally beat the Sigma. But we'll never know, and my Sigma has served me well for years of professional and hobbyist image-making.
So, the choice is yours. As others have mentioned, renting and trying is VERY important. It cost me a few hundred bucks, but before I started buying serious lenses I rented and tested practically EVERY lens that my local shop had. And as a result, I have zero regrets about the lens purchases I've made since then.
But at the very least, I can vouch for Sigma's EX HSM lineup of lenses, they're great. :-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
The Tamron USD (new AF motor, UltraSonic Drive) is in the 70-300 4-5.6
I totally agree with you about 3rd party lenses. Though if you're in a studio all the time, or some other situation where you're lenses won't take a beating, plastic Tamron lenses can be fine. I used to have one... I wouldn't subject it to much, but if you're gentle with it, it's fine.
If you have the money, go for the most expensive Canon prime lenses you can afford. That's my advice. But it really comes down to how seriously you take photography.
Oh -- and I started out with Tamron zooms, then went to Sigma, then Canon zooms... turns out I could have save a lot in the long run if I had just started with primes in the first place!
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
Also if you never buy a plastic lens you will never be able to appreciate the L's when you add or upgrade later
― Edward Weston