Excellent results w/ 3rd party lenses...

[emtp563]

I sit here on my laptop typing this from my condo at Seven Springs Resort in Champion, PA. I've spent the last four days here at Cycling Nationals. I've shot approx. 3500 pictures these past four days with my 350D and Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Tamron 25-75 f/2.8. My keeper rate has been about 90% with this combo. I must say I am astounded with the quality of my photos these two lenses generate, especially the Sigma.

I was concerned about "settling" for the less-expensive Sigma vs. Canon and after shooting several thousand photos, I am more than satisfied with my descision.

After spending the past year with "crappy lenses" (the Tamron 18-200/Canon 28-135) and almost turfing DSLR photography altogether because of less than stellar results, I am once again excited. Quality glass DOES make all the difference in the world.

Now I can't wait for my next camera purchase: the 30D.

[willg]

you have 2 fine examples of 3rd party glass. Its really more about the actual quality of the lens than the manufacturer. All brands have terrible and wonderful glass

[evandavies]

Wait till you try L glass ;)

Seriously... What makes all the difference is the glass. After all thats what makes the image on the sensor. The camera only captures what is projected.
I totally agree with Willg. The brand should not determine the choice. There are good and bad examples of lenses from all manufacturers.

Nice setup... ;)

I have the Canon 100-400 and Sigma 17-70 and they are both great for their uses but the Sigma is sharper that the Canon L!!!

[willg]

Wait till you try L glass ;)


the canon 70-200 is a beauty, but I have tried a friends 28-75 and it is fantastic as well. If I had it, I wouldn't feel the rush to upgrade to the 24-70..maybe on the 5d with the corners, but thats why I don't have a lens in that range ;)

[TSmith8779]

I have the Tamron 28-75mm. What a gem! And, the price is right on it.

I'm certainly not knocking the "L" lenses, they rock...but they are pricey. I use my 17-40mm a great deal, and it's never let me down. Wish my 70-200mm was a f2.8, but that may happen later this year, and it may be the Sigma version that replaces it.

[LewisImaging]

i have the sigma 70-200 also and love it. very sharp!!!

[Col_M]

I have to agree, the Sigma 70-200 is an absolutely stellar lens in it's own right even compared to the Ls.

[liza]

I'm considering the Sigma zoom, as I need faster glass in that range. The Tamron 28-75 is absolutely excellent. I use primes most of the time, but still pull this one out of the bag quite often. It's very sharp and produces images of good quality.

[basroil]

I have to agree, the Sigma 70-200 is an absolutely stellar lens in it's own right even compared to the Ls.
when stopped down to f5.6, sigma is indeed very close to the 70-200 2.8Ls. what makes the L lenses better most of the time is sharpness wide open and contrast thoughout the range. since you can always apply usm, and contrast curves can be taken care of, the sigma will not be at a disadvantage then comparing a few images. Ls take care of themselves when you take several hundred pictures and don't wish to process them all. as is always said, all companies have good and bad lenses, just happens to be that the best lenses in a certain category are almost always an L followed by a sigma, then tamron (happens to be price order too, so you do pay for what you get).

[jj1987]

As I've stated before. No other lens series gets the respect all around of an L. The peace of mind is part of what you're paying for, along with Canon's ohhh so good service if you need repair.

It's not like theres no other options out there...

[emtp563]

I just got home from the event. I have to go through the thousands of photos and choose which ones to post on my smugmug gallery. I have not seen yet the wide open images from the sigma. I shot those last night at around sunset. I'll post a link as soon as I get them uploaded.

edit: Here is a wide open shot of a low-light fast mover:

http://www.oc-athlonxp.com/web_images/example.jpg

It was taken at 7:22p.m., 1/500, f/2.8, +1/3 EC, ISO 400. Not too bad for a wide open, fast shutter speed, high-ISO shot. This has no PP, just resized for the forum.

Here is some PP magic (sharpening/tone curve adjust):

http://www.oc-athlonxp.com/web_images/example_1.jpg

[OdiN1701]

Ya know what I hate about the 3rd party lenses? They zoom ring goes the wrong way to zoom :evil:

I guess Canon has the direction copyrighted or something, but that's just ridiculous.

[emtp563]

LOL, if you have all 3rd party lenses, that point becomes moot. You get used to it. When you switch back to a Canon lens, then the Canon feels weird ;-)

[grego]

when stopped down to f5.6, sigma is indeed very close to the 70-200 2.8Ls. what makes the L lenses better most of the time is sharpness wide open and contrast thoughout the range. since you can always apply usm, and contrast curves can be taken care of, the sigma will not be at a disadvantage then comparing a few images. Ls take care of themselves when you take several hundred pictures and don't wish to process them all. as is always said, all companies have good and bad lenses, just happens to be that the best lenses in a certain category are almost always an L followed by a sigma, then tamron (happens to be price order too, so you do pay for what you get).

I agree for the most part, having owned the Sigma before my 70-200 IS. Also can be copy to copy varation, but it did seem like my Canon was a little faster AF wise(but it was a small difference). And better out of the camera results, but then post process anyway with any lens, so that doesn't really matter.

But yeah, its one of the top 5 zooms out there. The 70-200's by Canon and Sigma are up there.

[willg]

I didn't even notice the zoom went the other way until someone told me