Lenses ??????

Ok as much as I would love to own all Canon lenses especially L type the budget just won't allow it. Now I've read some good reviews on Sigma lenses, but not that good on Quantray which is made by Sigma. My question I guess is, if Canon lenses can only be a dream, what are your opinions on some of the other brands such as Sigma, Quantray, Tamron or any others I might have missed. I was looking at in particular. The Sigma 18-125mm 3.5 or the Quantray of the same, and a few other Sigma & Tamron lenses. It really gets confusing.

To me it seems that any lens - Canon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron - is a mixed bag. Some are good, some are not. All Quantaray and Vivitar "are poop" though.

I tend to stick to Canon, and L whenever possible. But the Tamron 28-75mm is one of the lenses on my short list. So I don't have an opinion on brands as much as the lenses themselves. Though all Quantaray and Vivitar lenses are poop, so that's a brand thing.

You know there are some threads in EOS about best budget/beginner lenses. They're Sticky. Check them out.


PS: I don't like the idea of ANY zoom lens that runs 18-125 - 7x zoom is just too much to keep quality tight (as a rule of thumb). 3x or 4x seems to keep the quality, and it seems that there are more quality 3x lenses than 4x lenses.

How to send a new post? Please help me ....

When you're in a section - seeing the list of topics - you'll see a button near the top left that says "New Topic"

Thanks Scott;
"PS: I don't like the idea of ANY zoom lens that runs 18-125 - 7x zoom is just too much to keep quality tight (as a rule of thumb). 3x or 4x seems to keep the quality, and it seems that there are more quality 3x lenses than 4x lenses."

That was one of my thoughts also. That's why I was also looking into the Sigma 18-50 3.5 or 2.8 and the Tamron & sigma 17-35 2.8
now the 3.5 is way cheaper then the 2.8 but hey we're not even talking half an f-stop. So for even a full stop difference I would be tough to justify the almost $200 price increase. I really need a wider angle than the 28 I have seeing as how I take mostly landscapes and architecture.

1/2-stop and/or better quality? Usually the faster lenses have better quality, too. So the quality may be worth $200, but for landscapes the 1/2-stop is very doubtfully worth anything at all, in and of itself.

Stoney, the Sigma 18-50 "3.5" you mention is really f/3.5-5.6, so you pick up a full two stops at the long end with the f/2.8, which is a constant 2.8 throughout the focal range. Also, the Tamron is variable too, it is f/2.8 at 17mm and f/4 at 35mm.

The Sigma f/2.8 is in their "EX" series which has better optics and coatings than Sigma's non-EX lenses. And it is really well built - I was pleasantly surprised by the apparent build quality.

Super little lens, in my opinion, if one is willing to accept a "digital sized" lens.

The only problem I've found is that it vignettes at 18mm if I stack a polarizer on top of the UV filter.

P.S. I think f/2.8 to f/3.5 is 2/3rds stop, or close enough with rounding. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree with what Scottes said regarding lens quality and brand,..

I just want to elaborate on the "QuatPooP" lenses.

Quantaray lenses are not Sigma,.. they are a total mish mash hodge podge of Whatever Ritz gets cheap. It is the "house brand" and indeed ,. they do not manufacture any of it.

A QuataPoop lens could be made by Vivtar, Pheonix, Cosina Tamron or Sigma. The Sigma ones are NOT the same as ANY cirrently made Sigma lens. They are older designs and or totally differnet designs made specifically for mass distibution thrugh Sigma.

(By the way,. if you include QuantaPooP branded Sigma's Sigma ends up being the most widely sold lenses in the world.. )

Anyway, the point is that you can't get one of Sigma's (or anyone elses) good lenses by buying a Quataray,.. and to top it all off,. usually the Qualtaray is more expesive than the superior branded counterpart.