| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2006 10:31:17 PM · #1 |
Looking to upgrade to better quality glass from cheap consumer lenses. I was looking at these two lenses for the wider end (Canon 2.8L is out of my budget for the foreseeable future). How has your experience been with these lenses? I could see the 24-70 not being wide enough in smaller spaces, but how does the image quality compare? Is the 18-50 a good choice? Thanks.
Tom |
|
|
|
01/24/2006 11:29:01 PM · #2 |
I had more or less exactly the same decision to make last month. I decided to go with the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di, which is an absolutely superb lens and was cheaper than all the other options.
I only found myself using lenses wider than 28mm for landscapes anyway. The 18-55 kit lens is pretty good (or at least mine is) in the 18-35mm range and F-stops between F8 and F11. My particular example of the 18-55 starts to get really quite soft by 55mm.
The downside to using the 18-55 is, although the lens is OK sharpness-wise, chromatic aberration will be a constant companion. I find this to be THE major weakness of the kit lens. It's also a real pain to use a polariser, I could handle the rotating front element issues if the damn thing wasn't so loose in it's seating. Touch the polariser and the front element will actually move needing a re-focus, which then needs polariser adjustment...
Despite it's faults, almost all my landscape shots (including my only ribbon here) are taken with the kit lens, and I have quite a few I'm really proud of now. The 18-55 will have to do for me until I can raise the funds to buy a Canon 10-22 =)
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 04:40:13.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 12:37:36 AM · #3 |
18mm just isn't that wide on a 1.6 crop camera. I think you'd be wasting your money getting the 18-50 sigma. It may be "better" than the kit lens but it's by no stretch a great lens. On the other hand, as Zorba says, the 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron is a killer good lens, at a very attractive price; it's a lens you can be happy with for a long, long time. Then when you can save up enough, grab a really wide lens, like the Canon 10-22mm, and let the good times roll. That would be my approach.
Robt. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 04:43:08 AM · #4 |
Interesting. Thank you for the responses. Is it generally considered that the
Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)for $365 (B&H)
is a better bet than the
Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF Autofocus Lens $400 (B&H)? |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:14:17 AM · #5 |
I have the sigma 18-50 2.8 EX and it is an excellent lens.
I moved up from a tamron 28-80 and my current walkaround is a tamron SP24-135 (a fantastic lens).
So I can speak from first hand experience on the 'wide' end on a 1.6 crop camera.
28 is NOT wide. Not even close. Indoors (in a home or other smallish place) 28 is practically useless.
24 is a maybe. Even outdoor at times 24 makes me back up too much to get a shot (too much being defined as into traffic!)
18 is just about perfect. Not so wide as to get nasty distortions and at 18mm the 1/focal length means handholding at 1/15 to 1/30 sec is easily possible. Add in 2.8 and you have a fantastic low light/indoor lens. It is also great for landscapes.
As to 'this is better than that' lens debate - from the fred mirands site:
Sigma 24-70 2.8 rates an 8.1
Sigma 18-50 2.8 rates an 8.2
tamron 28-75 2.8 rates 8.7
canon 17-40 4L rates 8.9
canon 16-35 2.8 rates 8.8
Tamron 24-135 rates 9.3 BTW.
All are good lenses, and many in the FM wedding forum feel the Sigma 18-50 2.8 is underrated. Most tests compare it's sharpness equal to the canon 17-40 with just as good color and contrast.
The reasons for my lens choices: I started with a 28-80 and found that range to be not wide enough on one end and not long enough on the other. The 18-50 is the 1.6 equivalent of 28-80 on a FF or 35mm camera, and it does make sense on a 1.6 crop camera. For indoors the 18-50 is my first lens of choice. For outdoor walking around and studio use i go for the tamron 24-135 - great range outdoors, very nice portrait lens.
As for ultimate speed: remember, that no lens is at it's best at it's extremes. if you want max sharpness, best contrast etc stop it down a bit to 5.6 or 8 and then compare.
Samples with the Sigma 18-50 2.8
        
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:22:46 AM · #6 |
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a good lens,it is no match for Canon 24-70 f2.8 L
But is much wider,and You will need that part from 18-24 mm a lot ,you just have to use tripod and stopped down to f8-f16.
Here are samples :
//www.pbase.com/image/52665643
//www.pbase.com/image/43788446
//www.pbase.com/image/48061614
//www.pbase.com/image/51619179
//www.pbase.com/image/48514052 |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:34:05 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a good lens,it is no match for Canon 24-70 f2.8 L
|
No fair comparing $1150 lenses to $500 lenses. If I'm paying that much more there better be no comparison!
And FM rates the Canon 24-70 2.8 at 8.8, about the same as all the other lenses.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:36:24 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:37:43 AM · #9 |
| I have the 18-50. Its quite nice. There is a small amount of vinetting when looking through the view finder, but I have yet to notice vinetting in my uploaded pictures. The autofocus is quite slow too. But I feel the quality of the glass and the 18mm is worth the downsides. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:39:35 AM · #10 |
the sigma 18-50 is nicely reviewed at photozone.de
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:29:31 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:50:06 PM · #12 |
Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 coming soon:
//www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06011802sigma17-70.asp
I don't know what the quality or price will be, but it looks interesting.
EDIT: Well it looks like is is available now. Adorama has it for $389.00
Still don't know about the quality though.
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 19:56:06. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:46:14 PM · #13 |
| Again, everyone, thank you for your responses. For the users of the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, how noticeable is the chromatic aberration I keep reading about in the reviews? Particulary in, for the sake of argument, prints 8x10 and larger? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 10:06:16 PM EDT.
