Question

gooble wrote in post #4046327
I've never heard of any of those words.

It's because I made them up

The simple fact is there is not a shred of evidence to indicate that Canon lenses are some how superior to non-Canon lenses, by virtue of them being made by Canon.
The brand does not imbue glass with magical ablities to resolve light, nor focus motors the ablity to defie the laws of physics (note, the 300 2.8 IS is an exception here, it diffinitly creates a hole in space time and applies its own laws of physics).

lonegirl has asked for some advice on a lens that fits certian requirments. Cost being an important factor.
Sigma make a lens that sounds like it would fit those requirments perfectly. Canon however, do not.

The Lens i requested, the 18-200 Was because it had a Great price tag with medium high quality images,the 18 mm helps alot :> + lonegirl, Are you planning on taking Sports pictures with that lens? because the focusing motor isnt that fast =D

Dear OP, there once was a time when I owned several Vivitar Series 1 and Sigma lenses (in the 70's and 80's), none were a zoom. This was before the electronics lenses and cameras now use. Canon designs their lenses from start to finish, from the bottom up, from the inside out, et. Third parties, who do not have access to design info, have to 'backwards engineer' (or 'reverse engineer) lenses to work on each of the several different camera brands. If this seems to be a disadvantage, it is. There has been issues in the recent past with third party lenses having to be rechipped to work on a particular model in a camera line. Sometimes even that will not work and so the lens is unuseable with that camera. Canon can (and does) design their lenses to work correctly on both newer and older cameras of the same mount. I also have to wonder how a third party lens can be truely compatible when their zoom rings work in the reverse direction of Canon's. And, in regards to zooms, I don't like to have/use a zoom of more than 3X, maybe 4X, depending on the zoom. Prime (non-zoom) lenses out preform zooms in image quality and speed. Therefore, it stands to reason (as a general rule) that the less the zoom range raito the less the design compromise needed and the better the image quality. Even though Canon makes zoom lenses well beyond a 3x or 4x lens (like 10x), I would not care to have one of those either. Is there a case to be made for buying a third party lens (or flash, or battery grip), sure. First, there are types of lenses made by third party companies that are not made by Canon (50-500mm comes to mind). Then, also, there are certain lenses (the 24-70 comes to mind) where one dosen't care to or can't spend $1100 on the Canon offering but will/can spend a good bit less, like $350 for the third party offering. What I said in my original post, "...less chance for problems than 3rd party lenses..." is correct, and, when Canon makes a lens within your budget and other requirements, I strongly suggest you consider getting it instead of one from a third party.

Please Edit Your post Jr_senator and add paragraphs ! will make people Read it more :I as i stopped T-T

Ok So far I am looking at Canon EF28-105mm USM and Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC
They are similar in price....I like that the Sigma has a wide focal range...Which would people o for?

lonegirl wrote in post #4050127
Ok So far I am looking at Canon EF28-105mm USM and Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC
They are similar in price....I like that the Sigma has a wide focal range...Which would people o for?

About the Canon 28-105: there are two of them. I have the USMII f/3.5-4.5. It's a very nice lens, very sharp, focuses quckly.

The 28-105 f/4-5.6 is older, slower, slower to focus, and not as sharp.

-js

With reasonable exceptions, any Sigma EX series lenses are better then any non l Canon lenses. Reasonable exception would be true macro and specialty lenes such as tilt & shift lenses. Sigma's and Tamron's "PRO" series lenses are very finely made for their price level better then most non L Canon lenses. Of course there exceptions. But, don't expect one lens to do it all and do it well. There will be trade off. Nw when you say sports Phtgraphy what type of sport are you talking about. For example sprts like footbal, soccer, baseball will require lenses that have long reach 300mm or better. Where as sports such as basketball (non pro) will need very fast lenses (indoor).

Thanks for the help everyone! I will now research a few stores around town (Toronto) and do some price checking. I still ha a lot to learn re my camera, but hubby knows nothin about it so I am basically goin to narrow it right down for him.

Here's another question. Is the length of the lense oing to affect the flash? Do you think I should also invest in a speedlight?
Thanks!

lonegirl wrote in post #4051429
Do you think I should also invest in a speedlight?
Thanks!

Absolutely, a photographer needs a flash. Get one when you can afford it.

Well, I know for a fact that the Sigma 24-70F2.8EX w/ hood on does not work well w/ the in body flash. The hood blocks the lower part of the flash so it castes a show on the lower part of the frame.