lens question to end all lens questions

so if you look at the MTF info at: http://www.photodo.com​/nav/prodindex.html
is shows that the Canon lenses have much higher ratings across the board than Sigma and the Tamron glass is usually even lower. Now I see a lot of arguing back and forth over Canon glass being better than the others or sigma being just as good but the MTF number don't lie so what is the real deal?

There shouldn't be an argument at all really. Canon is consistently better and commands the highest price. Sigma is not as good but much cheaper. Tamron is usually in third and it's price reflects that.

I can't see how people can say my "brand X" lens is just as good as the Canon version when clearly (no pun intended) it isn't.

I am not saying that "Brand X" doesn't make some good glass but the numbers don't lie...

Opinions?

If only life were that simple!

With a Canon EOS camera, anyone would be nuts to not buy Canon L lenses. Sad thing is, they cost as much as a small car, luxury kitchen, luxury cruise and so on.

Then, when you look at the mid range lenses, even on Photodo, it's obvious that even some Canon lenses perform badly. When you look at the cheaper lenses, most lenses perform badly (mind you, the benchmark seems to be perfection) and it's a bit of lottery to get a good one.

From reading on this forum it even seems that some good lenses can be bad - so to speak.

So whilst numbers don't lie, they only tell the truth in black & white, if you catch my meaning!

There's more but, I'm finding lens choice a much, much tougher decision than camera choice. Now, if I had the dosh, it would be easy.

Martin

I know it comes down to as sharp as you can afford, Believe me I own a sigma lens my self (15mm fisheye) and am happy as can be with it but I wouldn't suggest that is is as good as the Canon version and I have indeed used both.

It just seems that these numbers to be ignored by people that for lack of a better term "feel" like the "brandX" is better.

I agree this is a deep subject.... I wish it were easier and cheaper too!

Has anyone had any success with Tokina lenses?
I just ordered the 19-35mm. I'm hoping that a wide angle lense will be more forgiving than a telephoto as far as sharpness goes. I will post my findings after I finish testing.

I'm very happy with my Tokina 19-35. Stopped down to f8 or smaller, sharpness isn't a problem at all.

KRs
Chris

Good luck but in my experience, wide angle zooms are harder to get right than telephoto zooms.

The lens discussion to end all lens discussions will hopefully be an endless one. Otherwise those of us who thinks there is anything to discuss will be proven complete idiots. From the charts I’m happy to see that my Canon 50mm/1.8 is on average better than the Canon 50mm/1.0 which cost about thirty times as much. But this is not supposed to be so as cheaper lenses are inferior to more expensive ones by definition. See where this is leading to … an endless discussion IMO

That's nothing new. All other things being equal, the slower lens should generally outperform a superfast lens. The amazing thing about an F1.0 lens is that it actually works reasonably well. (But of course that's where the all other things aren't equal part comes in - the price for starters!)

I am literally being kept awake at night trying to decide my next lens!

I was absolutley positive I wanted as long a telephoto as possible for Birds and wildlife,. looking at a Sigma Zoom to 500mm in the $500.00-$750.00 price range.

Then I met you all!!!!!

Now I am stumped. I don't want to buy a $750.00 lens and be disapointed... and there is very little chance I will be able to afford "L" glass,. not untill this time next year anyways at tax return time.

This is a very tough decision indeed!

My compromise, so I can try Canon glass,. is to get a 50mm 1.8 (if i can find one) and see for myself. But I know that compared to the Sigma 28-200mm the Canon 50 will be better!

At 50mm the Sigma is f4.0,. so it is pants for low light work.

Not all Canon L glass costs an arm and a leg. You can buy a 100-300 F5.6 L lens for around $300. I've seen this lens go on Ebay many times in this price range. I have the lens and it's sharp but not a real fast lens....a real steal in my opinion. I think it's a discontinued lens but who cares.

Compulsive trivia - slightly off thread

For the obssesive compulsives out there with excessive quantities of money.

The cost to purchase all current Canon Glass at new prices. (not counting Tilt-shift, extenders, and the 1200mm (whch I don't have prices for)

= US$60,205 (+/- $500)
L glass only = $44800 (+/- $500)
L glass+ list = $53223 (+/- $500, includes all IS, 15mm fisheye and 50/1.4)

Data based on searching on Pricegrabber.com and using lowest prices that did not seem to be scam prices. The prices were rounded up to the nearest 10 dollars if under 500 and nearest 50 if over 750.

Data collected on 12 Feb 2003.

I only need $56,000 + the 1200mm to complete my collection

The EF 1200/5.6 is about 95000 US $.

It is only possible to aquire through ordering directly through Canon.

From what I have read, I would not eliminate all Sigma lenses from consideration. They make a number of fine lenses. For example, there have been very good reports on the:

Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX

Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX APO

Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM

Canon makes a number of great lenses, but they also make some non-L lenses that are not as good as some of their competition ( e.g. 28-200mm f3.5-5.6).

Canon L lenses are generally all fine lenses and they make many good non-L lenses. However, there are some non-Canon lenses out their that are competitive, especially when you consider price/performance.

Frank B

Regarding Tokina lenses... taken from
http://www.nikonians.o​rg …Tokina_AT-X_M100AF_1.html

One rumor was that, annoyed because of internal disagreement on what would be the future importance of the zoom lenses and how to improve those designs, a group of Nikon engineers and managers left to establish their own shop and try out their own ideas. Hoya was asked to produce the glass under their strict specs.

The other rumor was that they left with a OEM outsourcing contract with Nikon; harder to believe although plausible.

You must remember that life-time employment was the rule in Japan until very recently. Failure was not an option. It must have taken true grit to try out on their own.

So I made a consultation to THK (the USA distributor) for them to either confirm or deny the Nikon engineers' origin of Tokina and the Hoya glass participation. They confirmed it as follows: "........ It is true, ....


A lot of their lenses had good results

Hi,
some comments:
1. MFT is not all.
2. Do not trust lens tests only. Most of them only test one copy of a lens type, I've found that for most of the lenses (YES, including Canon) quality control gets worse and worse. So differences between different copy of lenses are definitely there. I got one Sigma 15-30 recently, chose 1 out of five. One of them was clearly inferior, one IMO slightly better. But that's only personal judgement from photos, no scientific measurement.
3. If you do travel photography, lens size and weight are also a big concern. So I rather have a lens which gives me the realistic opportunity to make a good shot, rather than one I know is optically a little better but resides in my bag..
4. So I chose the following for my 10D:
Sigma 15-30.
Canon 28-135 IS
Canon 75-300 IS.
Canon TS-E 90mm (I'm still waiting for this one, I always wanted to play around with shift and tilt).
5. Recommandation:
Choose what you like, but reserve the right to exchange the lens if you got a lemon BY YOUR OWN Judgement.
Fried