Yet another lens thread...

[Sicily1918]

Sorry if this has been asked (over and over, I presume, but the search function's difficult to use under these circumstances).

OK, apples to apples comparison (so no $1500 L lens vs. a $300 Sigma), are Canon lenses better than Tamron, Sigma, or [insert brand here] lenses?

For example, a Tamron 20-80mm vs. the Canon one (to be clear; I made up those numbers) -- which focuses faster, has better optics, etc., or at least is more apt to focus faster, have better optics, etc.?

I ask partially because I'm new to Canon, and because I'm torn between the Sigma 12-24mm (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001VQ11U/ref=wl_it_dp/103-3063180-2533468?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=I3BRDO5VMA9U8A&v=glance&colid=2N79Z9ZBWEPBQ) and the Canon EF-S 10-22mm (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002Y5WXE/ref=wl_it_dp/103-3063180-2533468?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=ICM26VNLV84GE&v=glance&colid=2N79Z9ZBWEPBQ).

Thanks for putting up with my crap :mrgreen:

[KevC]

I'd say Canon. But I've personally never used anything else. I figured, if I gots a Canon body, why don't use a Canon lens? Canon's glass is extremely high quality. Though many people have been happy with Tamron and Sigma. However, there definitely are specific ones that are worth noting, and others that could be skipped over. :)

[pcasciola]

In general, cost aside, I would say Canon has better optics, build quality and faster focusing.

But there are some lenses by other manufacturers that are very close and even better in some aspects, like the Tamron 28-75mm Xr Di, and some that Canon just doesn't produce, like the full frame compatible Sigma 12-24mm, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and Sigma 50-500mm to name a few.

I assume when you said no $1500 L to $300 Sigma comparisons you were thinking that would be unfair for the $300 lens, but that's not always the case either. If you get a really good copy of the $300 Tamron 28-75 Xr Di (about an 80% chance), it stands tall with the $1100 Canon 24-70L optically and beats it by far in terms of size and weight. However, it's not all roses. 10-20% are bad right out of the box when shot wide open, and the build quality is clearly worse and focus is slightly slower on the Tamron.

The Sigma 12-24mm vs Canon 10-22 is a tough choice, and one I have been struggling with for a couple of months. From what I've seen, it looks like the Canon is better optically, but it's and EF-S lens so it will only work on the 20D and 300D. Tamron is coming out with 11-18mm and Tokina is also coming out with something in that ballpark supposedly in the next couple of months, so it might be worth waiting to see what their offerings are. If I had to buy it today, though, I'd buy the Canon.

[tim]

I have the gear listed below. The Canon 100mm Macro is easily my best lens - it's fast and very sharp. When I switch from that to the Tamron, the Tamron seems slow to focus in comparison, though it takes nice pictures. I also had a sigma 70-300 for a week or so before I returned it (which I wish i'd kept), it also didn't have the speed of the USM motors or the build quality, but it was a cheap $200 lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

... no easy answer...

You can not assume that in every case the Canon version will be better...

On the whole though I'd say yes, given comparable specs,. the Canon version will be better,. but given comparable specs,.. the Canon will be more expensive as well.. in some cases significantly.

[Lesmac]

Another consideraton, depending on the type of photography you do, is the robustness of the lenses, over the last few years I've trashed a couple of wide angle sigma's, bouncing around the Yorkshire Dales, they just could not stand the punishment. While the Canon 17-40L is built like a brick s...t house, and just keeps on going.

Les
http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[TammieO]

The solid build of the Canon is worth the extra cost to me. My gear goes on every campout and hike.