An interesting new lens from Sigma

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <a

href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04072001sigma1850dc.asp">18-

50mm F2.8 EX DC</a>. </p>

<p> Not that <b>I</b> am interested, heaven forbid...... :-)</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[b_b13]

With Sigma and Tamron coming out with these inexpensive and good lenses one after another, one begins to wonder where Canon is. Nikon has a line of digital-specific lenses. What does Canon offer? That 18-55 kit lens that comes with the D-Rebel?

 

The cachet of L glass wears thin after a while, when the alternatives are so plentiful, and growing more so. I could wear out three of the excellent Tamron 28-75 SP lenses, and still save money over one Canon 24-70 L, plus the Canon is a honker, whereas the Tamron is small and easy to carry around.

 

And it isn't just price and size: it's utility. Canon has no equal to the Sigma 12-24 lens I have; if they did I almost certainly would have got one instead. And now this new lens comes out, one which covers an extremely useful distance. Canon better wake up from its nap fast, because the competition is getting better almost every day.

[jay_.]

Canon's not worried about Sigma, the next series of bodies will have some little programming tweak that makes them need to be re-chipped. Tamron and Tokina OTOH somehow seem not to have that problem.

[michael_peters1]

The problem is the EF mount

I'm pretty sure that past canon documentation has specifically stated that any EF mount lens will work on any EOS body.

 

So any lenses they release for APS film size sensors will need to be EF-S lenses, not EF lenses. Otherwise they may be sued because of the past statements - when the APS size lenses put a circle on film instead of full frame.

 

This is why I highly suspect the next 10D will have an EF-S mount. And probably some other updates.

[gerry_szarek]

Jay said "Canon's not worried about Sigma, the next series of bodies will have some little programming tweak that makes them need to be re-chipped. Tamron and Tokina OTOH somehow seem not to have that problem."

 

Response, they pay canon a royalty either for every lens or a flat fee for the algorithim / electrical design, FYI Sigma re engineers the canon lens algorithim becuase they refuse to pay the fee. The fee is on othe order of 10-25$ per lens.

 

Gerry

[awindsor]

I am not certain that Canon licenses their interface to either Tamron or Tokina. There are plenty of rumours but I have not seen anything substantive.

 

Can you provide a source for the license agreement and costs ?

[straightarm]

I know from personal experience when I moved from an EOS5 to an EOS3

 

Simon

[phule]

<< This is why I highly suspect the next 10D will have an EF-S mount. And probably some other updates. >>

 

The 10D and the 300D already use the same sensor. The reason for the EF-S mount is /not/ the sensor size.

[gerry_szarek]

It was a web posting (from an employee that worked for one the 3rd party lens makers, I am sure he got slapped by his/her employer if they found out) that I never copied unfortunately. You can get an idea of the cost by going to B&H or one of the biggies, and looking at 3rd party lenses note the cost difference between a Minolta and Canon EF mount is between 10 and $25.

 

Gerry

[digitmstr]

>>I could wear out three of the excellent Tamron 28-75 SP lenses<<

 

and they would wear out, no doubt. The built difference between the lenses is rather obvious, though. Every one makes a choice. To me, I prefer to have more solidly built equipment as, in my experience, that turned out to be cheaper in the long run. It's a bit like the 50 f/1.8 vs f/1.4: $75 vs $295...

 

I would not hesitate to buy a 3rd party lens if it were superior to the brand name lens in all respects.

[jespdj]

Jon Curtis wrote:

<p><i>"With Sigma and Tamron coming out with these inexpensive and good lenses one after another, one begins to wonder where Canon is. Nikon has a line of digital-specific lenses. What does Canon offer? That 18-55 kit lens that comes with the D-Rebel?"</i>

<p>I am glad Canon is not making more EF-S lenses with a limited image area! Even though I have a 10D, I want full-frame lenses. I expect my EF lenses to last much longer than my camera. If, in five years or so, there's an affordable full-frame (or even 1.3x) DSLR, I can use my EF lenses on that camera. I would hate to discover, five years from now, that I have to get rid of my lenses because 1.6x cameras are becoming extinct.

[michael_peters1]

<i>The reason for the EF-S mount is /not/ the sensor size.</i>

<br> <br>

Yes it is. The smaller sensor size allowed Canon to design the lens so that it doesn't need to produce an image circle for full frame film. Yes I know the mirror would strike the rear element on a full frame camera - Canon could have easily engineered around that, like Sigma has done with their APS size lenses. Canon didn't do so because they didn't need to, since the lens was only to be used on EF-S mount bodies - where the mirror doesn't have interference with the lens.

<br> <br>

I bet if the 10D had an EF-S from the start, Sigma would have used the EF-S and may have the same clearance problems on full frame EOS. But since Sigma needs the 10D market, they couldn't use an EF-S mount - and thus needed to ensure their lens would not cause damage when used on a full frame camera.

[b_b13]

<i>and they would wear out, no doubt. The built difference between the lenses is rather obvious, though. Every one makes a choice. To me, I prefer to have more solidly built equipment as, in my experience, that turned out to be cheaper in the long run. It's a bit like the 50 f/1.8 vs f/1.4: $75 vs $295...</i><br>

 

<p>I'm bedridden with a crappy back and bored right now, so I'm going to look at this kind of in depth.<br>

 

<p>Having used a 24-70 L, and owning a 28-75 SP, I doubt that the L glass would survive 3X longer than the Tamron. The Tamron is built as good or better than any EOS lens I've seen, except the newer L quality glass that's weather sealed. It isn't a flimsy lens by any means. But it also comes with a 6 year warranty. If the thing wears out in that time span (and I doubt it would happen), you get a new one. Not a bad deal, and one that adds to the life expectancy you get with your buy. <br>

 

<p>My guess is that most lenses stop getting used when they are either A) broken due to the user; B) made obsolete by newer technology (Canon FD); C) Stolen; or D) the user loses interest in photography.<br>

 

<p>The Canon lens has an advantage and a disadvantage in category A, above, because it's more rugged, and therefore less likely to break -- however, if it breaks, it's a much greater loss because of its price, about 4X the Tamron. I don't think the Tamron is 4X more likely to break due to an accident, but who can say: obviously there isn't a substantial body of empirical data one way or another. It's difficult to say, then, which lens comes out ahead in this area, although I lean towards the Tamron: it just seems unlikely the Canon is 4X more likely to survive knocks and so on, especially considering its much greater weight and size, which probably means it is more likely to be dropped or banged against in the first place.<br>

 

<p>The one area the Canon would presumably have a big edge is D, because it would probably hold its resale value better. However, I've met several former photographers, and none of them actually sold their equipment before they quit. They always seem to keep it, with the intent of getting back in, although they never do. There's a whole lot of FD stuff on E-Bay that got there via estate sales. Still, resale value is nice, should the photog move to another format or brand, so this is an advantage to Canon -- assuming the difference in resale value is great enough. My lens cost me $300; the 24-70 costs $1150 or thereabouts. I can give it away and be out only that $300; the 24-70 must be sold for no less than $750, or there is no advantage in resale value: ie, no resell edge to the L glass. Of course, this is without directly going into esoterica like the cost of money, which would be too anal to look at for some casual discussion like this.<br>

 

<p> Clearly, there is no difference in the other two categories that could favor the L glass. Assuming both lenses are insured, if they are stolen, they get replaced. If they aren't insured, again, the price difference of the Tamron becomes a huge issue: obviously it hurts more to lose an $1500 lens than a $300 one. Of course if the lenses are made obsolete, everyone loses -- but again, the Tamron buyer loses substantially less.<br>

 

<p>I'd be interested to see if anyone can poke holes in this, because I just kind of dashed it off, but it's some of the types of things people should think about when making buying decisions. I concede right off the bat that the L glass takes better pictures, but it's surprisingly close between the lenses, both from my experience and from the reports of others. I also will point out that the Tamron is much lighter and smaller, to the point where for me, the difference in picture quality is outweighed, as it were, by the greater handiness of the Tamron, although this is clearly a matter of individual taste and circumstance.<br>

 

<p>Ultimately, I think when you look at it from a lot of different angles, the Tamron is simply a much better deal for the vast majority of people. If you're the type of person (and there are lots of them here) who will likely sell your gear often, or

who wants to make sure that every shot is as perfect as possible ( you should probably be using primes, anyway), then there's a chance the L glass makes sense. I just don't think it's a good chance.

[b_b13]

The $750 in my post above should be $850.

[kin_lau]

Jon said "With Sigma and Tamron coming out with these inexpensive and good lenses one after another, one begins to wonder where Canon is. Nikon has a line of digital-specific lenses. What does Canon offer? That 18-55 kit lens that comes with the D-Rebel? "

 

Nikon only offers one frame size (1.5 crop) for digital, Canon offers 3, a 1.6 crop, a 1.3 crop & full frame. Canon probably doesn't want to limit it's lenses to just one class of camera.

 

Sigma and Tamron can be less concerned, since they can aim at the lower end of the market, losing the 1.3 & full frame, but gaining the Canon, Nikon, Pentax and soon Minolta markets.

 

Sigma's got some nice fast fix focal length lenses, but they're rather large. I'd like to see that take advantage of the small image circle for digital, and come up with some lighter and hopefully even cheaper lenses

[citizensmith1664875108]

Yup, interesting lens. I'm more entertained by Yakim posting about a zoom. Must bookmark that one so we can point it out a t a later time.

[poul]

the most interesting question is how much will it cost. if it's cheap enough, it seems as a good temporary solution for drebel/10d before upgrade to full size censor.

 

as for compatibility - when new canon camera breaks compatibility with sigma lenses, sigma re-chips them for free - you pay only one way postage.

[bobatkins]

<em>as for compatibility - when new canon camera breaks compatibility with sigma lenses, sigma re-chips them for free - you pay only one way postage</em>

<p>

Only if they are still current lenses I think. Try getting a 10 year old 400/5.6 APO lens rechipped. If they can do it I don't think it will be free - and I don't think they can (or will) do it.

[jon_austin]

*The reason for the EF-S mount is /not/ the sensor size.*

 

"Yes it is."

 

No, it isn't.

 

The small, 1.6x sensor on the dRebel obviously allowed Canon to design the EF-S 18-55 with a reduced image circle. However, if that was all there was to it, the EF-S 18-55 lens would also work on 10D, which sports the same size sensor.

 

It doesn't, because the 10D's mirror would strike the rear element of the 18-55 at certain settings.

 

The dRebel was designed with a mirror that moved up *and back* to avoid collision with the EF-S 18-55 lens, and it's *that feature* that necessitated the EF-S mount, not the size of the sensor.

[johnny_johnson3]

"It doesn't, because the 10D's mirror would strike the rear element of the 18-55 at certain settings."

 

Hi Jon,

 

I'm curious as to where you heard this. I have a kit lens that I converted for use on my 10D and it works fine at all settings without any interference with the mirror. In addition, I've heard others say that the rear element on the kit lens doesn't extend any further back than the one on the 50mm, f1.8.

 

Later, Johnny