Low budget lenses

Even though there is no doubt that the canon lenses are superior to most (all?) other lenses, there are many of us that cannot afford these. I am a low-budget hobby photographer who bought my 400D camera just before a trip to Uganda (2008). Since then, I have bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to replace the kit lens, and a Tamron 11-18 4,5-5.6. I am now looking for a telezoom to replace the canon 70-300 4.5 - 5.6 (non IS) which is too slow, and also show substantial chromatic aberration. My dream is of course the 70-200 IS 2.8, which is far out of my financial league. The 70-200 2.8 without IS could be a nice substitute (I have fallen in love with fast lenses), as is the 70-200 IS 4. However, there are two alternative lenses, Tamron and Sigma, both 70-200 2.8. I would like to know if anyone has got experiences with these lenses. Both Tamron and Sigma's versions are relatively new, and not reveiwed on this site. How much quality is lost by "stepping down" from Canon to Tamron/Sigma?

Hey Lars,


From what I could see on Sigma and Tamron's sites their latest 70-200 is reviewed on here. Maybe I wasn't seeing the right ones. I have the links to the two reviews here:


Sigma: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-70-200mm-f-2.8-DG-HSM-II-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx


Tamron: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx


These bear the same two-letter designations as the ones I found on Sigma and Tamron's site. The mkII for Sigma, and though it isn't in the title the LD edition of the tamron is the one reviewed. If you follow the reviews, the Tamron seems to win, though with slow AF.





Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lars

The 70-200 2.8 without IS could be a nice substitute (I have fallen in love with fast lenses), as is the 70-200 IS 4. However, there are two alternative lenses, Tamron and Sigma, both 70-200 2.8.

---

I would have bought the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 had it not been for finding a Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L for a little bit more. Let's face it, Tamron makes really good lenses. The value is incredible. If you can't find a used EF 70-200 f2.8L USM for around the same price I'd definitely go with theTamron. All you need then is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI and your set is complete. Buy the Tamron new from a reputable vendor like Adorama. It comes with a 6 year warranty.


I have the Canon f2.8 trio (17-35/28-70/70-200) because I could afford buying used L glass. I started out with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 on a Pentax K10 and a 17-50 f2.8 on a K100. I owned a 70-300 3.5-5.6 DI and really liked it on the Pentax. I bought one for Canon that didn't work so good. I have many beautiful and memorable photos taken through Tamron lenses. When I made the switch to Canon 3 years ago I bought a used 20D with a Tammy 28-75 f2.8 and immediately purchased a hand selected copy of the 17-50 f2.8. For ASP-C the 17-50 f2.8 DII is a wonderful lens.On Canon bodies, I have neverexperienced any slower focus issues with these lenses that I have not experienced in the same low light withCanon USM lenses. Focus accuracy iswhere the USM really shines. When shooting wide open the USM lenses are much more accurate than themanual screw driven Tammy's. If all I did was still and studio portraiture, I'd be more than satisfied shooting with Tamrons.Bang for the buck, I feel they're the best deal available today.


Bottom line: Buy what you can comfortably afford.Knowthe strengths and weaknessesthen make great photos.

I would suggest the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS). For the money, I don't think there's a better lens out there. If you can live with f/4, then it's the way to go...

Sorry for missing the Tamron, but I believe that Sigma came with a new version of the 70-200 (called <span id="ProduktInfo1_LabelProduktTekst2"]Sigma AF 70-200mm F2,8 APO EX DG MACRO HSM II, unsure what the APO means). As far as I heard, it was released last autumn, but I might be wrong. Sigma used to have a good reputation (better than Tamron) in the old days when I was using film and a canon A1. Wonder if that is still trough, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lars

Sigma used to have a good reputation (better than Tamron) in the old days when I was using film and a canon A1. Wonder if that is still trough, though.

---

From my reading only (I own only Canon lenses), Sigma lenses can be of high quality - the main issue of late is manufacturing quality control. Good copies of a given lens perform well, but there are many copies with focus motor issues, optical issues, etc. The suggestions I've read usually including buying from a local brick-and-mortar store so you can either test multiple copies of a lens or easily exchange a bad one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

I would suggest the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS). For the money, I don't think there's a better lens out there. If you can live with f/4, then it's the way to go...

---

This get my vote as well. Tons of bang for the buck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barba

This get my vote as well. Tons of bang for the buck.

---

Messed up quote. Referringto the 70-200/4 non-IS

Lars, you are correct that Canon makes very good lenses. Zeiss and Leica (and maybe Nikon) made slightly better optics, but that's offtopic. I suggest you avoid most Sigma lenses at all costs. Their QC (quality control) isn't very good and many people receive defective lenses. Their optics aren't always that good either. Now, there are exceptions. The Sigma 180 macro lens is just as good (if not better) than its Canon counterpart. Also, in many cases there is a cheaper Sigma lens that does something no Canon lens can do, i.e the 300-800mm zoom. But Canon's 70-200 lenses are the best. It doesn't really matter which one (well, the 70-200 f/4 IS is probably your best bet), but go Canon. Tamron's QC is decidedly better, and I personally would feel a bit more comfortable going with them. But if possible, go Canon [H]


hope this helps.


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lars

Both Tamron and Sigma's versions are relatively new, and not reveiwed on this site.

---

Here Ya Go! Side by Side

I show a picture i recently took with my EF70-300 to explain what I want to improve. The shot settings are: Camera Canon 400D, lens: Canon EF 70-300 4-5.6, shutter, 1/200, aperture 5.6, ISO 400, focal length 240mm. I leaned against a wall to avoid shaking. The crop shows actual pixels. I find the picture a bit unsharp (could be shaking, but also the lens) and there is chromatic aberration (look at the branch). Also, the 400D is not brilliant at high ISO, 400 is ok but not good, 800 is worse, and 1600 is for emergency only. By being able to step down to 2.8, I could shoot at higher shutter speed and lower ISO. I tried my (richer) brother's Canon 70-200 f4 IS, and the pictures are much sharper, so it is possible to get better quality even if you have to crop the pictures to get the same view.


So: would a Tamron 70-200 do the job, or do I have to go Canon? Unfortunately, the used Canon L lenses are almost as expensive as the new ones (at least in Norway).


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.39.80/Untitled_2D00_1.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lars

So: would a Tamron 70-200 do the job, or do I have to go Canon? Unfortunately, the used Canon L lenses are almost as expensive as the new ones (at least in Norway).

---

Bryans ISO charts. Tamron 70-200 @ f2.8 &amp; 200mm vs. Canon EF 70-300 @ 5.6 &amp; 200mm Here - You'll have to decide whether a crop will work.


The $1700.00 Canon EF 70-200 L vs $750.00 Tamron 70-200 Here And HereAnd HereYou can also compare the non-IS version of the Canon 70-200 f2.8L with Bryans ISO 12233 Charts.


It looks like a no-brainer. Put the money saved toward a better body. 40D's are a great value. Look what Nate does with his.

Thanks to everybody for sharing their tips on this topic (and my apologises for not doing my homework on the lens comparison). My desicion will probably be to go for the Tamron, and spend the rest (if any) on a new body. If the 60D comes soon, perhaps the price of the 50D will drop to an acceptable level that I can afford.