Lens advice for the EOS 10D -- Sigma, Tamron, Canon

[carl_a._mann]

Hi,

I consider buying an EOS 10D in the near future, but wonder what wide

angle (zoom) lens to buy. Initially, I favored the Sigma 15-30, but

there were controversial reviews in German mags, so I am not so sure

about this one. What about the 2,8-4/17-35 lenses by Sigma and Tamron?

Has anybody tested them? And what about the new Canon 4/17-35? Any

additional idea?

Many thanks for any comment or advice.

Uli

[dominic_.]

First off, I am not a Canon user, however I do know something about third party vs. dedicated (Canon, Nikon, Minolta) lenses. I once bought myself a cheap Tamron 24mm/2.8 because it was a cheap find on the used shelf. On the other hand I have used a friends 20mm Nikkor prime. Later when I went to compare pictures made with the two, the Tamron's results looked like crap compared to the Nikkor. Its not to say that all third party lenses are crap, I have a Sigma zoom which gives me wonderful sharpness, no aberations, and natural colour renditiob. However its usually the more expensive lenses that are the better ones, you get what you pay for in other words. For a DSLR you shouldn't need to spend a lot of money though on an incredibly sharp lens as all digital cameras have a low-pass filter over the sensor which reduces the image sharpness. Hope this helps.

 

Best wishes,

 

--Dominic

[andrew robertson]

How much money do you have to play with? This would probably tell you what lenses

are within your range.

 

I always buy Canon stuff - you can search the archives for a post about my story with

Sigma. Aside from the quality, the Canon lenses have a much higher resale value, and

never need 're-chipping'.

[artspace erik wes]

I have Canon primes (28mm 2.8 & 50mm 1.8) and Sigma & Tamron lenses for my 10D and D60. The Canon primes are great, but look into the current posts on this site and dpreview.com & pophoto.com of the new Tamron 28-75 2.8 aspherical XR DI . It's an incredibly sharp, smooth focusing, wide-angle to zoom lens. I only paid $300 for mine brand new and I haven't touched another lens in a month!

[yakim_peled1]

<P> First let me say that spending a lot on a body and little on lenses is - photographically - a <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#whichdigitallens">very silly move</a>. It's like buying an excellent stereo system and attach it to a lousy speakers. A sheer waste of money. </P>

<P> second, the 17-40/4 USM L is a highly regarded lens. Possibly the best one in its category (wide angle zooms under 1000$). Have a look <a href="http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Canon,EF,17-40,f-4L,USM/PRD_144218_3128crx.aspx">here</a>, <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&thecat=27">here</a> and <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml">here</a>. </P>

<P> Third party lenses, and especially Sigma ones, are suspected to <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#buythirdparty">compatibility problems</a>. The Canon counterparts are generally better and will <b>never</b> give you such trouble. </P>

 

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>