Sigma 24-70 or EF 28-135

[txhptroop]

Hello All,

I will soon be purchasing my first SLR lens. I am as rookie as it gets so thanks in advance for any guidance. The lens will go along with my Rebel XT (black body). Saddly to say, money is an issue and I have had to work much overtime to save up for these purchases.

Most of my shooting will be of family and friends on vacation along with the scenery. We spend alot of time at the lake where we boat around, ski, tube, drink too much, and camp in the motorhome. I also love boats and will be shooting, sailboats, tugboats, and shrimpboats along with their occupants.

My plan is to purchase the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 EX DG Aspherical as my first lens.
I don't have the money yet for my second lens but it will be
Canon 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 IS USM or
Sigma 80-400 F/4.5-5.6 EX OS APO or
Sigma 50-500 F/4-6.3

Do you think I am headed in the right direction as far as lens choice? I noticed the EF 28-135 IS is a popular choice as a starter lens. It would cover more than the 24-70 and has IS. They both are close in price, the Canon would be about 50 bucks more. I want quality and plan on keeping what I buy for a long time. I am more interested in reach than in wide angle shots. I have been shooting the last five years with a Canon Power Shot with basically no zoom.
Thanks again for the help and criticism is welcome.
Jim

[ed rader]

if you are more concerned about reach than wide angle get the canon. i have it and its a 216mm zoom on a 1.6 crop factor that you can hand hold even in many low light conditions.

the sigma is more for the person who is concerned with wide angle in a mid-length zoom...as there aren't many fast options with 24mm at the wide end.

frankly the quality issues with sigma lenses scare me or else i would have bought the 24-70 instead of the 28-75 tamron because i find that the 4mms on the wide end make a huge difference with the type of shooting that i do.

ed rader

[Nightcrawler]

Quality issues with Sigma? Neither are without their problems.

[snapper27]

I have been reading here that many times the tamron is soft and has to be exchaged for a better copy, also that the focus is slow. I am leaning towrds a sigma for these reasons. -
I think I have rules out the 28-135 b/c it will be too slow in may situations and my next lens ( a 70-200), in a few months, will overlap the zoom anyway...

[LightRules]

I've used all these lenses; see my site below:

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

[ed rader]

>>I've used all these lenses; see my site below:<<

i've seen your site and you've done a great job. the caveat with any lens is "if you get a good copy".

the conclusion from i've reached after all that i've read is that you are more likely to get a good copy of the tamron than the sigma, and that copy is more likely to work with the next camera upgrade....something i am a year or two away from.

also, the tamron is the most popular third party mid-range zoom.

another reason i like the tamron is the size and weight...i prefer a light kit. i also own the tamron 17-35, and i really like it.

so...i hope to get the tamron today and after i've had a chance to do a real world evaluation (lots of pics) i'll have to decide which lens to keep...the tamron or the canon 28-135.

in all fairness to sigma i will probably try the 24-70 at some point and keep either it or whatever else i am using in that range at the time.

ed rader

[Adam Hicks]

Tamron is the better of these lenses hands down. IS is fine, but f2.8 constant is more versatile and image quality of the Tamron is better than the Sigma all day long.

Adam

[txhptroop]

Thanks JoJo, great sight and great photos, but I'm still undecided. I like the build quality of the Sigma EX. I also like the IS and the range of the EF 28-135. My second lens might be the Canon 100-400. If my first lens is the 24-70 I will be missing the 70-100 range: is that a big mistake?

[LightRules]

Sorry, but absolutely unsubstantiated and quite simply false <sigh>...

Tamron is the better of these lenses hands down. IS is fine, but f2.8 constant is more versatile and image quality of the Tamron is better than the Sigma all day long.

Adam

[ed rader]

>>Tamron is the better of these lenses hands down. IS is fine, but f2.8 constant is more versatile and image quality of the Tamron is better than the Sigma all day long.<<

well...i just got the tamron and i snapped a few pics in the front yard and the back. preliminary results are the images are sharper than those taken with the canon 28-135, which is no surprise to me...of course there is no gain on the short end and a huge loss on the long end :cry: .

the tamron is also more compact than the canon 28-135 and balances much better on my 300d with grip.

first results have me excited :lol: and after the gym i'll go to the park and take a bunch of pics and have a better idea ..............

ed rader

[Henry Low]

Hi there, I would definitally go with the sigma 25-70 but buy it from a store to make sure u get sharp copy.

If u can get a sharp copy, the sigma there is alot to love, the F2.8 constant ap, the nice build quality, and of course the contrast. :)

[lostdoggy]

I just tried out the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 today and I got to say its a pretty decent lense considering that the Canon's 24-70 f/2.8 goes for $1200. The built if nice and the manual focus is smooth. The lens skin has a nice feel as well. I mounted it on my camera and fire of a few shot and if I get a chance I'll post it later. So check back if you want to see. This would be unbias since I don't own the lens. Still shopping.

[lostdoggy]

Here is some pic taken today w/ Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG: