Good comparison to canon lenses?

Frankieplus · May 2, 2006

What would be a comparison lens in a third party brand to the L rated lens Canon has.

eg: 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS

Would there be lenses out there as good as those but cheaper? Or maybe, good enough and cheaper?

I was going to buy the above lenses and a 30D but would really like a 5D. If I can somehow find the same lenses in another brand that's cheaper I may be able to swing the 5D my way

-Frankie

Big Mike · May 2, 2006

I don't own any L glass but it seems to be the 'gold standard' in 35mm lenses.

Sigma does make a 70-200 F2.8 (without IS) that is quite a bit less expensive than the Canon version. Supposedly it's a very good lens.

Sigma also has a 24-70 F2.8. I've heard mixed reviews but it's certainly much cheaper than the very expensive Canon L lens.

I guess you have to ask yourself if you need the quality of L glass. Do you need the durability? Do you need the top level of optical quality?

Rob · May 2, 2006

Sigma are probably the best alternative. I understand that their f2.8 fixed aperture zooms are comparable in quality to the Canons. I'd recommend getting down your local store and taking some back-to-back pictures with each and seeing for yourself if there's a difference.

Rob

KevinR · May 2, 2006

You may want to check out the 28-75 2.8 tamron also.
I have it and it is a very sharp lens.

ksmattfish · May 2, 2006

KevinR said:
You may want to check out the 28-75 2.8 tamron also.
I have it and it is a very sharp lens.

I've been told by 1/2 dozen pro photogs that this lens is one of the best investments they've ever made.

thebeginning · May 2, 2006

same here. i'd say the sigma or the tamron 24-70 or 28-75 to replace the 24-70L. check photozone.de (i think) and read the reviews for each one and come up with a verdict yourself. The sigma 70-200 2.8 is a nice lens, but honestly I would go with canon's 70-200 2.8L (non IS) instead, as it's only about 100 bucks more brand new. used you can find it for less. You may also want to consider canon's older 80-200 2.8L, which is extremely sharp (but varies from lens to lens unfortunately) and very well built. the only problem with that one is that canon doesnt really service it anymore because it's so old, and you can't use canon teleconverters with it.

Dave_D · May 2, 2006

I will also vouch for Tamron lenses. The sigma lenses are very good when you are in their higher end glass, but they still tend to be a little cooler in color tones. More dull basically.

DocFrankenstein · May 3, 2006

Dave_D said:
I will also vouch for Tamron lenses. The sigma lenses are very good when you are in their higher end glass, but they still tend to be a little cooler in color tones. More dull basically.

Dull and cooler are different things. Dark is bluer. Dull is low contrast.

I have the sigma 70-200 and functionally it's a very good lens on a 300D as compared to the L. I'm very happy with it, even though it's a bit soft wide open. Saved me a lot of money and weighs less than the canons.

Never tried the 28-75 tamron, but keep hearing it's a godsend if you get a good copy. Very compact too. I wouldn't want to lug around 24-70 because of its weight, even if they cost the same.

Big Mike · May 3, 2006

thebeginning said:
The sigma 70-200 2.8 is a nice lens, but honestly I would go with canon's 70-200 2.8L (non IS) instead, as it's only about 100 bucks more brand new.

Price difference is $300, as far as I can tell. $839 vs $1139 at B&H. I thought it was a much bigger difference actually.

cecilc · May 3, 2006

thebeginning said:
...the only problem with that one (Canon 80-200 2.8 L) is that canon doesnt really service it anymore because it's so old, and you can't use canon teleconverters with it.

You might not be able to use a Conon teleconverter with it, but you can use a 3rd pary teleconverter. I've got the 80-200 2.8 and regularly use a Kenko 1.4 converter with it ...

thebeginning · May 4, 2006

Big Mike said:
Price difference is $300, as far as I can tell. $839 vs $1139 at B&H. I thought it was a much bigger difference actually.

sorry i didnt clarify, i meant the lowest price I found. at KEH.com you can get them (the 70-200 2.8L) for $999 sometimes.

benhasajeep · May 4, 2006

I have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. I have had it about 2 weeks of use. I think it is just fine. It may not be quite as good as Canons L. But for the price I am very happy with it. Of course after I bought it. I found several reviews that put the Tamron glass ahead of the Sigma on this size. but I am still happy with it. Especially compared to the kit lens I got with the 20D. I will probably buy the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 as well. I bought all Nikon 2.8's when I got my f100. I did that purely just becasue they were nikons best and thats what I wanted. Did not research into them at all. Didn't even look into other lenses that may have been just as good for less $$. I am being a little more selective now a days.