Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

I went into a local camera store to look at the Nikon 12-24mm wide zoom, ultimately increasing the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and 18-200mm VR I currently use on my D200. After seeing Sigma 10-20mm, the test images with it, and Nikon, and then print the pictures in the store, I went out with the Sigma lens.

I had planned to buy 12-24mm Nikon next Spring when my budget allows spending. I have had success with Nikon optics in the past - starting with my first Nikon FM back in the seventies. Sigma is good design, nice finish, smooth + fast + quiet focus and 10 mm focal length persuaded me to try my first non-Nikon lenses for 30 years. A major factor: the Sigma lens is less than half price on the Nikon lens here is Canada. It fits my budget, so I took the plunge.

Sigma fits into my "sharp enough" category. In the real world shooting, the sharpness on par with my 18-200mm Nikon. Both lenses are less sharp than my $ 100 50mm 1.8, when the "test" images blown up to 16 "x20" size. I never notice any lack of sharpness in "real" pictures. I care more about color saturation, contrast and color balance though. This area allows Sigma well. Saturation and contrast is equal to both of my other Nikon lenses - especially the F8 key and less aperatures. Wide open, I find some weakening in contrast. Sigma has a warmer color temperatures than my other lenses. A click on the blue in Photoshop will solve the minor variations in color. But I use my 10-20mm almost exclusively for landscapes. The warmer color is generally good.

I have noticed some vignetting @ 10mm F4. Zoom to 12mm or stop down to F5.6 elminates all artifacts in the images I've taken so far. I have found it more important to avoid "thick framed" filters - and stacking filters is a no no with this lens. They cause more darker than a wide open f-stop. BTW: I have a 72-77 mm step-up ring for my 18-200m Nikon VR for letting me share filters between my zoom lens.

I miss having a manual / auto focus switch on the Sigma lens. I accidentally bumped the manual focus ring a few times. With that said, does incredible depth of field this lens (or lenses at this focal length) less focus error can be tolerated:)

I recommend this lens - even for me who never had a non-Nikon lenses before.

Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

I bought this lens to give me an ultra-wide angle zoom for landscapes and indoors. I can not routinely shoot in this focal length, so I was hesitant to spend so much on the Canon 10-22mm, but the Canon 10-22mm is by all accounts fantastic. I have had very positive experiences with Tamron in the past, and decided to give this lens a try under the Sigma equivalent. Cosmetically, the lens is very light but feels solid in your hand, and the zoom ring takes some getting used to when it rotates in the opposite direction as the Canon lenses. Finish of the lens is very nice and the included lens hood fits well, but provides only minimal protection for the lens. This is understandable, since this lens is an ultra-wide angle zoom lens and large businesses would cause vignetting and shadowing problems. The lens hood does a good job of protecting the question glare. The lens extends only a small amount of zoom. Performance wise, the lens is quite soft wide open, which is somewhat disappointing, but not a major issue for my own purposes. There is something to be very aware of anyway. But down to f / 8 or smaller solves this problem and at f / 8 and smaller, this lens very sharp with very nice color, contrast and saturation. Sharpness falls again at f/16 due to diffraction, but between f / 8 and f/16, the lens is excellent. CA is well controlled as it is barrel distortion, both of which are common serious problems for many elements in this focus area. I was pleasantly surprised by this objective control of the CA as I expected, it is much worse than it is. I borrowed a friend's Tamron 11-18mm lens and my 10-24 was superior in terms of problems with CA and barrel distortion, and adds a point of speed. The upgrades, Tamron has done with this lens is very noticeable and worth the extra cost compared to previous generation Tamron ultra wide-angle zoom lens. The auto focus is very quiet, precise and fast. Overall this is a very nice alternative to the much more expensive camera brand lens like the Canon 10-22mm or extremely expensive Nikon super-wide angle lenses and provides very good quality in this zoom range.

UPDATE: Recently, this lens is a serious tumble from about 3 feet above the ground on a hard tile floor. The only damage was a lens cap on the Ding! I'm impressed.

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

I have never bought a non-Canon lenses because I love the look, feel and optical quality of Canon's line, especially L-series lenses. But I kept reading rave reviews about this lens. At several places. So I went out and took a look.

First impressions: The build quality is not as good as a Canon L-series lenses. Duh! It costs about 1 / 4 as much for God's sake. This is an objective - not metal. But I must admit that the build quality was pretty darn good. Better, I think, than the Sigma lens I've seen. Fit and finish was very nice and tight. I would give the build quality a 4 / 5 Not bad. I figured I could live with it.

Then I put the lens on my camera. I'd read reviews complaining about the speed of focus. It may not be quite as fast as my 200 f2.8 L series lens but it was pretty darn good, and for my purposes, very quickly. A 4.5 / 5

I'd read reviews complaining about noise and the fact that AF was not USM. I thought AF worked very quiet. Not at all disturbing, and barely noticeable. Noise - not a problem.

So I took pictures with the lens, and I was completely floored! How on earth did manage to produce a Tamron lens that has performed so well optically to such a reasonable price? Beautiful contrast, good resolution, brilliant color, and very sharp, especially with F2.8. But, F2.8 very good too.

Of course, the first comparison that comes to mind between this lens and Canon 24-70 F2.8 L. I would say that I'm not joking, is this lens in all respects optical directly from Canon or better than Canon. I could not believe it.

I tested this lens directly in an entirely new copy of the Canon 24-70 f2.8L. Methodology: I tested both lenses on a tripod @ F 2.8 and 8.0 @ 28mm 50mm and 70mm. Target limestone wall 9.5 meters parallel to the sensor plane. Self-timer employed. No mirror lockup. Center and all four corners have been assessed to my naked eye on a screen with 100% crops. Both lenses are new samples received in the last 7 days.

The limestone walls lent themselves perfectly to assess the sharpness and subtle contrast and color reproduction. It was a huge detail present in the wall with subtle colorations present.

Conclusions:

28MM F8: Tamron definitely sharper in the center and corners

28mm F2.8: Tamron definitely sharper in the center and corners


50MM F8: Tamron slightly sharper in the center and very little sharper in the corners

50MM F2.8: Tamron a bit sharper in the center and right corners.

70MM F2.8: Canon sharper in the center and corners. In addition, the inability Tamron focus as much as I could achieve with manual focus.

70MM F8: Tamron sharper in the center with the Canon a bit sharper in the corners.

Some have said that it is less flare with the Canon, but if you use the lens hood that should not be a problem. I did not notice excessive flare in my copy.

Sure, there is a significant Copy to copy the variation in both Canon and Tamron, but my results convinced me that 1 / 4 of the price, and with the Tamron weighs one pound less than the Canon lens that Tamron has for me. Optical 5 / 5!

I can not recommend this lens highly enough. It is the first non-Canon lens I've owned and I'm happy.

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

As a baseball player with a decent batting average, some power, a bit of speed and pretty good fielding ability, need Tamron 18-200 lens is not an All-Star any time soon because it does not excel at one thing. But just like $ 500k/year utility infielder, gives this lens a very good all-around value for what it is. Is it comparable to a prime lens at both ends? Heck, no. Is it a good lens to use when you can not carry a wide selection of lenses with you? Absolutely.

I have used this lens on my 20D quite a bit and have only a few minor dissatisfaction: it has a tendency to hunt for AF (especially when you get closer to 200mm) and it is not the quietest lens I've used.

A previous reviewer mentioned that it maxed out around 160 mm. My own analysis shows that the lack of 200mm, but not by large scale, I found it much closer to the 190 th Yet there is no doubt that these zoom lenses with extreme series like this has a built in fudge factor.

Another reviewer described the problems he encountered when using two screw-on filters. There are not many prime numbers that I have used it will avoid vignetting when using two filters. Heck, my 10-22 deal with only one extra thin. When it darkens the picture - yes, you can add two more pieces of glass in a very complex lens elements ... just asking for trouble.

Regarding concerns about the veil at longer focal lengths, I highly recommend that you use a tripod. I noticed exactly the same - the blurring and lack of sharpness - the lengths of 100 mm. Keep the old rule of thumb in mind - if you're shooting handheld, your shutter speed is not slower than the inverse of your focal length. A 200mm lens on a 20D (or Rebel XT for that matter) is an effective 320mm - I would not recommend shooting any slower than 1 / 500 at maximum zoom with this lens - unless you use a tripod. When I mounted it close, I got great shots without blur.

Remember you get what you pay for here: the convenience of a wide angle, normal and moderate telephoto lens in one piece. If you shoot professionally or need for perfect pictures and then make three or four lenses, this would replace the bag. But if you want an easy to use, the right lens, go for this. It is a jack-of-all-trades, ace-of-no kinda business.

Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

I tested the Canon 28-105 3.5 to 4.5, Sigma 24-70 2.8, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 18-55 3.5 to 5.6. I would say this Tamron 17-50 2.8 my dream lens. I bought the Canon 28-105 3.5 to 4.5 for focal length, but was very sorry for his softness and returned it. So I went to the Sigma. It's a big, heavy lens and very solid. Based on assessments, it should be very sharp. But it was not true in my case. No matter how hard I tried, I never got clear picture. I think I was lucky enough to have a good copy and returned it for a week. Finally I bought Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. It surprised me from the very first picture. Sharpness is as good as the Canon 50mm 1.8 Prime, benchmark index. Contrast is very good and color too. 7 blade iris provides beautiful background blur. I do so much about sharpness so that the lens is my taste. Focus is very accurate and fast enough, but not as fast as the Sigma. Now I never touch the Canon 18-55 kit lens, the difference is huge. It is true that this lens does not have IS. But for 17-50mm range is not as useful as the telephoto lens. The price is excellent considering the top optical quanlity. Now I feel that I am a pro. :)))

The reasons I chose this lens:

1st widest angle in class (most important for the 1.6x crop factor sensor camera
2nd Very crisp and top quanlity glass
3rd light weighted, small and easy to transport
4th 7-blade aperture for pleasing background (if you own the Canon 50mm 1.8 II, you will see its 5-blade diaphragm opening makes harsh background)
5th great constant 2.8 aperture across the spectrum
6th great price