Lens Question.

[shachr6]

Ok been looking at lenses. What are the differences between, Canon, Tamron, and Sigma. Im sure there is some quality difference in build and picture quality. How do they stack up?

 

[Stevedevil]

Glass basically

But also f range, as a Zoom with f2.8 will be more than an f4.0

Ultra Sonic ( or others use different terms such as HSM )

Image stability ( IS on Canon )

Again with Canon L range ( Glass quality )

There's quite a lot really

 

[shachr6]

Yes I do understand those things, I just mean like it there a big difference if you had the same lens but different name
example if they were all 17-55mm f2.8 lenses?

and does having the IS of a Canon lens make a big difference?

do any other lenses have something similar to IS?

 

[Big Mike]

Canon has some really good lenses...and they have some crappy lenses.
Tamron has some really good lenses...and they have some crappy lenses.
Sigma has some really good lenses...and they have some crappy lenses.

Do you see a pattern?

You can't really compare the manufacturers across the board like that. You have to compare specific lenses...often, you have to compare different lenses from the same manufacturer.

The easiest way to quickly get an idea of the quality is by the price. Better lenses cost more...as with just about anything else. If you budget allows, you can get the most expensive, which is often the best performer (Canon L series)...however, other companies often have lenses that perform 80-90% as well...for 50% of the price. So if you have a tighter budget, you need to look for something with a good price to performance ratio.

 

[Stevedevil]

Most Lens Manufacturers will use a different term for features on a lens, I am yet to own an IS lens ( mainly cost ) but an addition to lens choice will always be Cropped and Full Frame

Some lenses now will only suit a Cropped Digital Sensor, Glass is smaller so Cheaper

It will always depend on " What You Need "

 

[Big Mike]

and does having the IS of a Canon lens make a big difference?

For some shooting situations...yes, IS makes a big difference. It's not the be-all, end-all solution...but it certainly is a nice feature to have.

do any other lenses have something similar to IS?

I think Sigma is starting to introduce some lenses with some sort of stability technology. Nikon, of course has their VR...but I assume we are talking Canon and Canon mount lenses here.

 

[Stevedevil]

IS is the camera shake not a fast object you want to shoot

They say using a Tripod reduces the need for IS

As I said I dont own one so Keep Reading

 

[shachr6]

Yes I can see that. Im guessing my best bet is to go into a store and try some out! I was looking at getting this lens 17-55mm f2.8 IS EF-S USM, how does Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4.0 Di Lens, or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8XR Di LD IF, or the sigma equilivent add up to it?

Or are they totally different?

Would you get the 17-55mm f2.8 IS EF-S USM or a L series without the IS, this might help I am looking more for doing weddings in the future.

 

[Stevedevil]

Are they image stable lenses

 

[Big Mike]

The EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS, is a very good lens, from all that I've heard and read about it. The only drawbacks are that it's rather expensive and being that expensive, people would prefer it to actually be an L lens (which is probably just an ego thing anyway).

The Tamron 17-35 F2.8-4 is a variable (max) aperture zoom, so it's not really in the same category. Same deal with the 17-70 F2.8-4...although I hear good things about that lens. The 28-70 F2.8 is said to be a good lens and it's got a constant max of F2.8, which is great...but it's a long lens. Sigma also has very similar lenses of similar quality and price.

The ones that match up to the 17-55 F2.8 IS are the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 F2.8. Both are said to be rather good lenses and less than half as expensive as the Canon. The Canon does have IS...but IS is not as important at these wide angles as it is for longer lenses. Bottom line, if I had the money...I'd get the Canon. The reality is that I'm on a budget...and that's why I chose the Tamron.

I should also add that there is the 'kit' lens from Canon...18-55 F3.5-5.6...but it's just a toy compared to these other lenses. There is also the Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 IS. The build quality is much better than the kit lens and it's got IS and more reach...but the max aperture is not very big. I have this lens but will probably sell it because I need the F2.8 max aperture.

 

[shachr6]

The EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS, is a very good lens, from all that I've heard and read about it. The only drawbacks are that it's rather expensive and being that expensive, people would prefer it to actually be an L lens (which is probably just an ego thing anyway).

The Tamron 17-35 F2.8-4 is a variable (max) aperture zoom, so it's not really in the same category. Same deal with the 17-70 F2.8-4...although I hear good things about that lens. The 28-70 F2.8 is said to be a good lens and it's got a constant max of F2.8, which is great...but it's a long lens. Sigma also has very similar lenses of similar quality and price.

The ones that match up to the 17-55 F2.8 IS are the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 F2.8. Both are said to be rather good lenses and less than half as expensive as the Canon. The Canon does have IS...but IS is not as important at these wide angles as it is for longer lenses. Bottom line, if I had the money...I'd get the Canon. The reality is that I'm on a budget...and that's why I chose the Tamron.

I should also add that there is the 'kit' lens from Canon...18-55 F3.5-5.6...but it's just a toy compared to these other lenses. There is also the Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 IS. The build quality is much better than the kit lens and it's got IS and more reach...but the max aperture is not very big. I have this lens but will probably sell it because I need the F2.8 max aperture.

Yeah I have the kit lens that come with the XTI, so now I dont know which one to get. lol. I dont mind spending the extra money if it will make that much of a difference? Thanks for all the help so far guys!!!!

 

[Big Mike]

I also depends on what kind of shooting you do. If you shoot landscapes, then the kit lens is actually pretty good. You can (and should) use a tripod and use a small aperture...so the max aperture does not matter.

If you shoot weddings (dark churches, moving people etc) then having a fast aperture is a big advantage. If you want a lens for everyday 'walking around' type stuff...then IS will be a very handy feature.

Picking the right lens seems to be one of the hardest decisions that amateur photographers face. One thing that I've found and seen...is that you are rarely disappointed when you splurge and buy the better lens. It's dealing with the wife, after spending the money, that is the problem

 

[Jeremy Z]

Rather than try to answer this, I will just point you to www.popphoto.com, and suggest you search through the lens reviews. A lot of what you're looking for is there.

 

[DSLR noob]

Just out of sheer bang for buck, try taking indoor shots with the oh so cheap 50mm f/1.8 MK II. a 1,.8 aperture almost seems to work miracles. Do you know how dark a bowling alley gets? Well here are some shots from a bowling alley taken with reasonably quick shutter speeds.

http://hs.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2005217&l=41eff&id=1114080518
all of these photos were taken without flash, the kit lens needed AF assist beam to even focus if you want an idea of how dark the place was.(skip the first 10 photos as they are blurry, my fault)

The lens also takes great portraits by blurring the background of the image, making your subject stand out.

 

[JIP]

Bottom line is really you get what you pay for. Unless you are talking about a 50mm 1.8 wich is a great bargain for what you get a quality lens is expensive the more you pay the better lens you are going to get. This is not to say there are not some really good lenses out there that are relatively inexpensive but generally that is a good way to measure.