Glamour 1™ is loaded with great photographers and models portfolios, forums, photography tips, workshop info and much more than a typical portfolio site. These valuable services increases traffic and operating costs and those that support our community of models and photographers by upgrading their accounts as a Lifetime Member (pay only once, never pay again) enjoy practically no advertising--upgrade now to increase your viewing pleasure while supporting this community and family of glamour photographers and models.
Don't want to see this message or large ads, register, then upgrade now!
I use Canon and love Canon. However Canon lenses are pretty steep price wise. I haven't used a Sigma lense but did price them....some are more than half what a Canon lense costs. I do have a Tamron lense that I have been unhappy with and am afraid to try another "compatible" lense. My question to the experts is......would Sigma still give great quality/performance or should I be patient and hold out for the Canon lenses. I'm looking into getting a 70-200mm 2.8 ($699 Sigma - $1199 Canon) and a 24-70mm 2.8 lense ($299 Sigma - $1099 Canon).
Any thoughts?
Thanks ahead of time for your help,
Sean
On a side note....any Canon users use the extended battery grip for the D30/60 etc..? Is it a more of a help or a hinderance?
28-70 2.8 for 4 years on a Nikon mount, and find the results very nice.
Interesting you ask this question. I shot the other day using studio flash, using my friends new Nikon 28-70 ED lens, that sells for $1,400.00 . I then put my Sigma lens on and shot several frames with that. I have to tell you, his lens was sharper, but not that much. It is easier to focus with manually, and in the autofocus mode, it is very, very smooth. No noise at all.
Anyway, like anything, there's a cost benefit analysis that must be made when making a large investment. For me,I shoot mostly with my 80-200 ED 2.8, so the other lens gets very little time.
Yes, you'll pay a bit extra just for the Canon name. But you're also paying extra for the higher quality build, the superior construction materials, and the better quality optics. Read some reviews of the lenses you're interested in; I'll bet most reviews favor the Canon and that the objectively comparable points - lens resolution, contrast, noise level, etc. - all at least somewhat favor the Canon.
You have to decide for yourself whether the improvements in those features are worth the extra cost to you. An expensive lens may make a great shot somewhat better, but it won't make a mediocre shot good, let alone great.
Having said that, I also suspect that if you shoot seriously for any length of time, you'll eventually see the difference in optical quality and would come to prefer (or wish for, depending on your current decision) the Canon lens. I know that my old Pentax lenses yield sharper, crisper, "better" pictures than the various off-brands I've tried. After several "bargins, I started buying only Pentax primes. Best choice I ever made.
But, then again, I'm no expert and Pentax A and M primes cost about the same as the Sigmas you're talking about, not the Canon prices.
In all fairness, my answer is tainted by the fact that I just bought an $80 Black & Decker plunge router - and am already wishing I'd waited to buy a $200 Porter Cable. Still learning, I guess.
Your answers don't say sure go buy the cheaper one so you can play......Now I don't have anyone to blame for regretting not waiting. Seriously though, I appreciate the feedback. It seems to be the same answer everywhere I ask. It'll be in my best interest to wait and stick with good ol Canon.
Thanks again.
Sean
I'm happy with my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM. It focuses fast and is sharp. I have no doubts that the Canon counterpart is a little sharper at f/2.8. I bought my lens used from B&H for $550. You can see some images I shot with this lens at http://www.phototalk.net/rryerson - The images are in the Motorsports folder. I have other images, such as portraits, that I have shot with this lens but I don't have them up on the site yet.
I've used Canon lenses for eighteen years, and they're just as sharp over the entire f-stop range now, then when I first bought them. You can probably get by with an inexpensive body; afterall it's just a "box" that holds the film. I've always held the belief, that if I'm going to invest top money it's going to be good lenses. To caveat I'm not an employee of Canon, just a satisfied customer.
Do not compromise on your lenses, they are what make a quality photo. I've been a Canon user since 1976 and have no regrets, I use all f2.8 glass. Take a look at my website and you'll see a lot of Canon images. www.adeketchum.com
As for the battery grip for the D30/D60/10D, by all means it is a help, especially if you shoot vertical images because it has a shutter release button on the top of the grip. And, if you're going with a Canon digital SLR, take a long hard look at the new 10D, I've had mine for a week and the images are awesome.
I have two 28-200 f/3.8-5.6 lenses. one is a tamron the other is Sigma. I am not sure if my Sigma is outta whack, but I have been getting better results with my tamron on my Canon 10D.
This image was shot on the 10D at
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/180
Av( Aperture Value )
5.6
Metering Mode
Partial
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
100
Lens
28.0 - 200.0 mm
Focal Length
200.0 mm
I appreciate it. I think I'm gonna hold out for the Canon lenses.....I'm just impatient as hell LOL. Sigma looks pretty good but I have been very happy with Canon...from my Rebel G to the D30 and my current lenses.
Thanks again,
Sean
IP: 206.148.165.145
Linear Mode
