Hi All

I’m looking to invest in a new lens or two for my 600d. I’m not sure exactly what I want just yet though. What is the Stw experience of using sigma or tamron lenses instead of canon? Are they generally a false economy or are they a viable alternative to the more expensive Canon lenses?

I have a new 600d as well, and am using my mixed bag of Tamron and Canon lenses. So far, the quality has been pretty much on a par for me, so I’d say that Tamron are well worth a look.

OK, so my Canon stuff is a little lighter and looks/feels better but in terms of image? Not sure I can tell the difference so far.

Are they generally a false economy or are they a viable alternative to the more expensive Canon lenses?

If you’re talking about the L lenses, then no.

OK, so my Canon stuff is a little lighter and looks/feels better but in terms of image?

Weight is often a good guide, the heavier, the better. 😀

I think the OP probably means the fact that Canon are generally a little more expensive than the alternatives.

There’s such a broad spectrum there. And the alternatives aren’t always cheaper. They’re not always worse and they’re not always better. It depends very much on what you’re looking for.

Hmmm I guess I need to figure out exactly what I want.

I would like a wide angle lens, and the 10-22 sigma is attractive, but I’m wondering if I would be better off getting a good quality general purpose lens to replace my kit lens. I could get a 17-40 L series canon, but for quite a lot less I could get a 17-50 f2.8 sigma.

I could get a 17-40 L series canon, but for quite a lot less I could get a 17-50 f2.8 sigma.

I have the 17-40 and love it and would thoroughly recommend it as it’s not too expensive either.
Look at what you’re going to shoot and the amount of low light shooting, if lots, go for the 2.8 sigma as the Canon 16-35 f2.8 is mega bucks.

Do you find that 40mm is too shallow? Are you using a full frame sensor camera?

1.6 crop, again depends on what you’re photographing. For me it was cycling an I had access, permission from the organisers and the acceptance from the majority of riders to go on the courses and get close, for this I used the 17-25 range more.
I also had a couple of primes 50mm and 85mm, a 70-200 for distance and some podium work.
I was looking at buying the 24-70 to fill in the gap.
Personally I prefer to keep a shorter range in the zoom.

I don’t think I will do too much low light shooting, mostly landscapes/holiday shots. I’m going to NZ later this year and want a nice lens for landscape / general use. I’m just a bit worried that 40mm might be shallow, but then I don’t use the 55mm end of my kit lens much.

I don’t really know much about landscape photography and am prepared to be corrected but would have thought that the wider end is more important as is a smaller aperture. It’s not my area though.
I originally bought it as part of a plan to be a proper wide angle for when I buy an EOS5d.

One of (if not the) best lens review sites out there:

http://www.lenstip.com/lenses_reviews.html

I’ve got a Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens on my Olympus. Now I know it’s a generic lens not optimised for my camera, but I have a love/hate relationship with it. It’s nicely made, it’s sharp and f1.4 is a great thing to have and I’ve got some lovely pictures on it…

… IF you can get it to focus. AF is bobbins unless it’s really bright with normal SLR style phase detect AF, and contrast detect doesn’t really work at all (ie in live view). It zap zaps to find focus fairly slowly which I could live with, but when you press the button home it goes haywire and gives up altogether so you get all creamy bokeh and no subject.

It could be because it’s third party – but then I expect they put a bit more effort into making their lenses work with popular bodies. Annoying, because I bought it specifically for taking pictures of people inside which usually means evening situations and low light. The wide aperture means I can get exposure, but I can’t focus automatically! And MF takes a fair bit of effort when using such large apertures.

If I were going travelling tho, I would take a kit lens. You’ve got the most options in one lens then without excessive size.

Some good advice, keep it coming!

Where are you bamboo? If North Shrops, you can have a play with my 17-40 ( I would have said mine but tazzymtb is probably lurking).

Thanks very much indeed for the offer don Simon but I’m in Warwick so that doesn’t work out well 🙁

I’ve got a Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens on my Olympus. Now I know it’s a generic lens not optimised for my camera, but I have a love/hate relationship with it. It’s nicely made, it’s sharp and f1.4 is a great thing to have and I’ve got some lovely pictures on it…

… IF you can get it to focus. AF is bobbins unless it’s really bright

I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 and it’s terrible for focusing in low light. Hunting all over the place before it gives up. So don;t go thinking Canon would be any better! Great bargain lens aside from that though. I love it.

Butcher…. I find the same for my 50mm 1.8, especially focussing within a couple of meters

I wonder if it’s something to do with the wide aperture then? Which is rather counter intuitive. It’s doing something with the iris too – it flicks it to a smaller aperture when it’s attempting to focus, you can hear it clicking about.

The Sigma 10-20 is the landscapers’ lens of choice and recommended by soooo many photographers. It is a fantastic bit of kit (I have the older version and the newer one is supposed to be even better) which I really can’t recommend highly enough. It’s much smaller and lighter than longer zooms.

That said, almost all my recent landscape stuff has been taken using a 17-55mm f2.8 lens or longer (although obviously not at f2.8!). You can see some HERE – blatant plug…

Have a look here, loads of really good info on canon lens’

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

Nothing inherently wrong with either of the brands; there’s good and bad lenses from all three makes.