Lens comments

Khaos · March 2, 2005

OK

I want to round out my collection of lens until the day I win the lottery and can buy all L series. :wink You can see what I currently have in my signature.

I'd like to sell the 28-135 and buy a replacement to fill in the range below the 70 -200. I want something faster, because I don't care for the way this lens handles in low indoor light. I can't justify the over $1100 cost of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, at least not to the wife.:lynn I've been seriously looking at the Tamro 28-75 f/2.8 that I can get for arond $360. Many of the reviews I've read have been positive, stating it's quality is very near the Canon, the only drawbacks is noise and build, not that the build is bad, but it's not a L series build.

I want a wide angle, and I'm looking to get the Sigma 14 f/2.8. Opinions? Other suggestions? Remember, for me, right now, Canon is too darn expensive.

While not immediate, Spring is coming, and I'd like a super telephoto. Here is where I definately can't afford Canon. I've been eyeing the Sigma 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 that has Sigma's version of image stabilizing. Opinions? Other suggestions?

Thanks.

davev · March 2, 2005

Khaos wrote:

OK
I'd like to sell the 28-135 and buy a replacement to fill in the range below the 70 -200. I want something faster, because I don't care for the way this lens handles in low indoor light. I can't justify the over $1100 cost of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, at least not to the wife.:lynn I've been seriously looking at the Tamro 28-75 f/2.8 that I can get for arond $360. Many of the reviews I've read have been positive, stating it's quality is very near the Canon, the only drawbacks is noise and build, not that the build is bad, but it's not a L series build.

While not immediate, Spring is coming, and I'd like a super telephoto. Here is where I definately can't afford Canon. I've been eyeing the Sigma 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 that has Sigma's version of image stabilizing. Opinions? Other suggestions?

Thanks.

Hi Khaos,
Looking at your list of lenses, and the statement that the 28-135 is to slow,
I don't think the Sigma 80-400 will be the lens for you. It focuses slowly, and
if it has to cycle through, it takes a couple of seconds. That being said,
the lens works well if you're not in a hurry. If a bird is wading in the water,
or a deer is walking across a field, this lens is fine. If you think you're going
to get a finch flittering from one branch to another, you won't be happy.
If you have ever used a Canon 75-300is lens, this lens focuses much the
same way. The stabilizer works well. Others have said that this lens is
sharp wide open. Mine isn't. But I haven't had it long enough to really see
what it can and can't do.

Hope this helps.
for some samples, click here: http://www.pbase.com/davev/sigma

Khaos · March 3, 2005

davev wrote:

Hi Khaos,
Looking at your list of lenses, and the statement that the 28-135 is to slow,
I don't think the Sigma 80-400 will be the lens for you. It focuses slowly, and
if it has to cycle through, it takes a couple of seconds. That being said,
the lens works well if you're not in a hurry. If a bird is wading in the water,
or a deer is walking across a field, this lens is fine. If you think you're going
to get a finch flittering from one branch to another, you won't be happy.
If you have ever used a Canon 75-300is lens, this lens focuses much the
same way. The stabilizer works well. Others have said that this lens is
sharp wide open. Mine isn't. But I haven't had it long enough to really see
what it can and can't do.

Hope this helps.
for some samples, click here: http://www.pbase.com/davev/sigma

Thanks. I would be using the 80 - 400 outside only. My issue with the 28-135 is that indoors with low light, its performance is well below my 70 -200 or 100. The noise is increased and the colors are very washed out. That's why I was looking at the Tamron.

I live near a large public park and I also love to go to the zoo and take shots. That's why I'm looking at a super telephoto. I'm not concerned as much with speed as I am with sharpness.

DoctorIt · March 3, 2005

You don't have the 17-40L f/4 on your list. that is a sweet lens, for a lot less than the f/2.8. Fast, sharp as a tack. And you have a 20D so you can push ISO way high, a lot more than I can with my 10D. I love my 28-135 actually. With my 580EX, dark indoors, I get very nice shots. I don't think I'll ever sell that lens... for the money i couldn't replace it with much.

If you're looking at telephoto, i had the same quandry... I ended up with the 100-300 f/4 Sigma + 1.4x TC. I haven't heard a bad thing about this combination. Focuses very fast and sharp all the way through. I went with this setup over the 80-400 for fixed aperture and focus speed. (my lens should come in tomorrow or monday, so i can give you a better review then)

mercphoto · March 3, 2005

Khaos wrote:

I've been seriously looking at the Tamro 28-75 f/2.8 that I can get for arond $360. Many of the reviews I've read have been positive, stating it's quality is very near the Canon

While I have heard very good things about the Tamron, I've heard mixed reviews of how it compares to the 24-70/2.8L. But at the price delta, wow! There is no doubt, however, in the reviews and images I have seen that the Tamron is better than the 28-135.

I've been thinking of doing a comparison myself between the 24-70 and 28-75 to see if the image difference is worth the price difference to me. A grand is a lot of money.

DoctorIt · March 3, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

I've been thinking of doing a comparison myself between the 24-70 and 28-75 to see if the image difference is worth the price difference to me. A grand is a lot of money.

this back to back would be very worthwhile... I'd like to see it.

mercphoto · March 3, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

this back to back would be very worthwhile... I'd like to see it.

I'm just not sure how to go about doing it. I can easily bring a CF card into the store, borrow a 20D and the two lenses, take some snaps, bring the card home. Tyson will let me do that. But what would I take pictures of? Would that be controlled enough of an environment to glean useful data from? They would be mostly, if not entirely, indoor flourescent shots at short distances.

DoctorIt · March 3, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

I'm just not sure how to go about doing it. I can easily bring a CF card into the store, borrow a 20D and the two lenses, take some snaps, bring the card home. Tyson will let me do that. But what would I take pictures of? Would that be controlled enough of an environment to glean useful data from? They would be mostly, if not entirely, indoor flourescent shots at short distances.

indoor flourescent shots still give you plenty of info. Check out this comparison I did in my lab (very flourescent light) of a Sigma vs. Canon L. Here's a hint, focus on the thumbscrews of the clamps over on the right side:

Oh, and for wide lenses, it should be short distances anyway.

If you look at the original size, you can see blatently how much sharper the Canon is. At this size, the color and general softness, the difference is still visible. Both of these were taken with my new 10D, parameters set to mimic my old rebel (yes, I got kind of used to the extra sharpness, +2, and saturation, +1).

Khaos · March 3, 2005

I ordered the Tamron. After rebate it'll cost me $320.

With a lot of positive reviews, I'm still leaning towards the Sigma 14. I want that extra wide. With the 1.6 crop with the 20D it would equal 22mm compared to a 35mm camera. The 17 - 40 would be 27 - 64.

I've decided I'm just going to have to wait a couple of years and stash cash here and there and save up and buy the dream Canon L super telephoto.:D

Lens comments

Comments