ANOTHER LENS QUESTION...

[Steve Parr]

Which is generally considered to be a better quality lens, overall, in terms of optics, construction, durability, and the like: Sigma or Tamron?

Thanks...

Steve

[HJMinard]

There is no correct general answer to your question. There are excellent lenses and complete duds amongst both brands. We might be better prepared to answer if you have a specific need in mind (prime or zoom? wide angle or telephoto?).

[Citizensmith]

Absolutely, there are Sigmas and Tamrons that are better built than some Canon lenses. You are much better off what type of lens you want as we'll be better able to help. We could make a general statement but it is too likely to lead you into trouble.

[Steve Parr]

Alrighty...

By "prime", I'm guessing that we're talking about something like a 50mm or so, am I correct?

I'm going to be shooting bands in bars, under less-than-ideal lighting. I've been thinking of going with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, but also wanted to consider lenses by other manufacturers, as well.

As an addendum to my question, I've found the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 for $74.95. I found the f/1.4 (USM) for $309.95. Is the benefit of having the f/1.4 worth the price difference? Also, what's the benefit of the USM?

I know these may seem like simplistic questions, but I ain't exactly well versed in this stuff yet.

Thanks!

Steve

[nosquare2003]

By "prime", I'm guessing that we're talking about something like a 50mm or so, am I correct?


Prime means lens with fixed focal length. 50mm is a prime lens but a prime lens is not necessary a 50mm lens :) In the film days, 50mm under 135 format is called standard lens.

Well, Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 are both very good lenses.

[Lensdude]

Prime means lens with fixed focal length. 50mm is a prime lens but a prime lens is not necessary a 50mm lens :) In the film days, 50mm under 135 format is called standard lens.
Huh?? There are primes and zooms with either being designated as the standard lens. Prime means single focal length. Zoom is the term used to describe those lens that cover a broad range of focal lengths from 2X like the 35-70mm to the 7.5X like the 28-210mm. Primes generally produce sharper photos with less spherical abberrations caused by lens flare than zooms because there are fewer lens elements and groups of lenses used to produce the prime lens. The 50mm became the "Normal" lens because that is about the same angle of view the human eye sees... Hope this helped

[Lensdude]

I'm going to be shooting bands in bars, under less-than-ideal lighting. I've been thinking of going with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, but also wanted to consider lenses by other manufacturers, as well.

As an addendum to my question, I've found the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 for $74.95. I found the f/1.4 (USM) for $309.95. Is the benefit of having the f/1.4 worth the price difference? Also, what's the benefit of the USM?
Steve

For the money you won't notice $235 worth of extra sharpness/clarity/quality with the 50mm f/1.4. The USM has a slightly faster and slightly quieter AF motor than micro AF motor but the USM does allow you to focus manually when the lens is switched to AF without damaging the focus gears.
The Canon 50mm f/1.8 cannot be beat for price vs. image quality by any manufacturer.

[Marshall]

Steve, apropos the previous replies, don't forget the multiplication factor depending on which digital camera you own.This is due to the sensor size in relation to 35mm film.Usually this is in the region of 1.6x, therefore the 50mm lens would become 80mm equivalent,useful for extending the range of long lenses but less so in finding a wide lens.We seem however to have gone off at a tangent compared with the original thread.

[Andy_T]

As an addendum to my question, I've found the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 for $74.95. I found the f/1.4 (USM) for $309.95. Is the benefit of having the f/1.4 worth the price difference?

You'll have to answer that one yourself. It greatly depends on how much you are willing to pay for an incremental increase in picture quality and low light performance.

This comparison (http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/) might help.

Bottom line ... the 50/1.4 is better, but it is not 4 times better. However, it is 4 times more expensive.

Best regards,
Andy

[Steve Parr]

You'll have to answer that one yourself. It greatly depends on how much you are willing to pay for an incremental increase in picture quality and low light performance.

This comparison (http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/) might help.

Bottom line ... the 50/1.4 is better, but it is not 4 times better. However, it is 4 times more expensive.

Best regards,
Andy

Thanks everyone.

And Andy, I read that comparison last night. A good read, and a lot of good information.

In all honesty, I think I'm going to go for the f/1.8, for no other reason than I have a hard time justifying dropping four times as much on the f/1.4, at least right now.

I'm just getting back into photography after a long hiatus, and I'm not exactly paying the mortgage with my photography. In fact, I'm not even buying a cup of coffee and a bagel this morning with my photography. So, I need to watch where the nickels fall, and spread them out evenly.

Again, thanks for the excellent information and advice...

Steve

[defordphoto]

And check out the lens sticky: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752

You can also ask more than one question in a thread. ;)

[Steve Parr]

You can also ask more than one question in a thread. ;)

Hehehehehe... Hint taken...

Steve

[Citizensmith]

In all honesty, I think I'm going to go for the f/1.8, for no other reason than I have a hard time justifying dropping four times as much on the f/1.4, at least right now.


Down the line if you decide the 50 is to narrow to get shots of the whole stage the 28 f/2.8 is another cheapy, as good as the 50, and would let you get more of a view in. Or, Sigma make an excellent 20 f/2.8 that is optically superior to the equivalent Canon.