-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Who here has Canon L glass?
- Thread starter glen
- Start date
I *had* canon L glass but then sold it. (70-200mm f/4L)
Now I just own Sigma EX and Tamron SP lenses.
Now I just own Sigma EX and Tamron SP lenses.
It's a solid lens.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show...uct.php?product=5&sort=7&cat=27&page=1
Price. If I were to go with all Canon L, my current lens lineup would probably be over twice (over ~$2000) the price of what it actually is. Sigma and Tamron's pro lines suit me just fine.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
I own the EF 24-105 F4L IS.
I hope to buy the EF 70-200 F4L IS, EF 17-40 F4L, and EF 35 F1.4L within the next 12 months. I am also going to sell my beloved EFS 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM.
My preparations for the EOS-6D/going to a FF format have begun!
I hope to buy the EF 70-200 F4L IS, EF 17-40 F4L, and EF 35 F1.4L within the next 12 months. I am also going to sell my beloved EFS 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM.
My preparations for the EOS-6D/going to a FF format have begun!
GTaudiophile
Lifer
I am hoping that Canon will follow in the footsteps of the EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS and release a EF 24-75 F2.8L IS for the FF crowd. But hopefully they can make a telescoping version, one that won't weigh a ton like the EF 24-70 F2.8L.
randomlinh
Lifer
Same. That 70-200 was amazing tho. I just didn't really use it to justify having it... it was a rather impulsive buy. I've reduced to a sigma 18-50 EX and a canon 85 f/1.8.
I'd like to replace the sigma w/ the 24-105 IS f/4L, and maybe a 10-22 EF-S. I know I won't be going FF anytime soon. hehe. But well... i haven't picked up my camera in a good month so..... yeah, it's not happening anytime soon.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
I am happy that they do. But I've owned the Sigma 30 F1.4 and still own the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. And while the latter is a great lens, you cannot compare its AF speed, especially in low light, to that of the 24-105 F4L IS. Canon's USM is so buttery smooth and silent and fast it's not funny. The AF on the Tamron is quite slow, loud, and clunky by comparison. I often find myself simply switching to MF for speed.
Oh, I totally agree. The 30mm is largely a stroke of luck if you get a good copy that focuses fine, and Tamron's autofocus is just... stoopid, since they don't have a USM or HSM equivalent. They're nice and sharp, but the mechanics are just soooo old.
I personally think that out of the 3rd parties, Sigma's probably the best if you can get past their quality control. Their HSM is very quick, and their optical quality can be great, depending on the lens.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
I have the 70-200 f/4 and the 17-40 f/4 lenses. Both are solid lenses and cost about half what the faster f/2.8 lenses cost. Still, it would be nice to have the faster lens.
I had a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 lens but I didn't like it. It's too big, takes an odd filter size, it had horrible zoom creep, the barrel would bind at the long range of the zoom and the autofocus was noisy and had a tendancy to hunt in low light. None of the Canon lenses I've tried exhibited even one of those problems. Also, Canon L lenses are sealed for dust, the Sigma was not.
I had a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 lens but I didn't like it. It's too big, takes an odd filter size, it had horrible zoom creep, the barrel would bind at the long range of the zoom and the autofocus was noisy and had a tendancy to hunt in low light. None of the Canon lenses I've tried exhibited even one of those problems. Also, Canon L lenses are sealed for dust, the Sigma was not.
foghorn67
Lifer
I had a choice between the Canon 24-70 and the Tamron 28-75. If money was no object, the Canon L would win. My friend has one, and it is fast on the AF, good colors and sharp. More durable and heavy, it balances nice on any EOS body. I rented some before, and fell in love with it.
The Tamron's AF isn't that bad. It hunts around in the dark, and low contrasts AF points hunts more then the Canon. And it's too light.
Besides that, it's great. It's a steal. Someday I'll replace it with a Canon, but not anytime soon.
I tried Sigma's in this range, and I am not happy with them. One has variable aperature. Another is soft in almost all copies out there, and another is total crap. HSM is missing.
Sigma needs something in the fast walk around catagory that isn't cheasy. And to drop everything else in that range, because there is way too many lenses of theirs.
The Tamron's AF isn't that bad. It hunts around in the dark, and low contrasts AF points hunts more then the Canon. And it's too light.
Besides that, it's great. It's a steal. Someday I'll replace it with a Canon, but not anytime soon.
I tried Sigma's in this range, and I am not happy with them. One has variable aperature. Another is soft in almost all copies out there, and another is total crap. HSM is missing.
Sigma needs something in the fast walk around catagory that isn't cheasy. And to drop everything else in that range, because there is way too many lenses of theirs.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
I only have faux Canon L glass. 😛
Here are a whole bunch of sample pictures from the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. Looks really sharp.
I own the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di (click for samples) which covers almost exactly the same focal range. The Tamron goes for ~$350, and the Canon goes for ~$1150? That's a heckuva price difference - I'd examine the optical quality from those samples real carefully. 😛
Edit: Beaten by foghorn67! Well, he touched upon something important - the Tamron's AF is not the best, whereas the Canon lens in question has USM. That could play significantly into the decision.
Here are a whole bunch of sample pictures from the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. Looks really sharp.
I own the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di (click for samples) which covers almost exactly the same focal range. The Tamron goes for ~$350, and the Canon goes for ~$1150? That's a heckuva price difference - I'd examine the optical quality from those samples real carefully. 😛
Edit: Beaten by foghorn67! Well, he touched upon something important - the Tamron's AF is not the best, whereas the Canon lens in question has USM. That could play significantly into the decision.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
He posted two links in his post, one to pics taken with the Canon and one to pics taken with the Tampon.
virtuamike
Diamond Member
Buddy shoots with a 17-40, 24-70, and 70-200/4. They're all good lenses.
Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina make some good lenses and they're a great value, but it's going to be tough to convince me that they're better than Canon/Nikon pro line.
Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina make some good lenses and they're a great value, but it's going to be tough to convince me that they're better than Canon/Nikon pro line.
fotomanphil
Junior Member
I've got a few...
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS
foghorn67
Lifer
It is tough to beat.
L's are more durable, some weathered sealed, metal barrels.
If you look at the diagram of the elements on how many corrective elements there are...it's frightining. You'll see Sigma with a boatload of ELD, SLD and ashperical elements. On the L's, there will be only one or two with comparitive elements. The third parties are trying to catch up on it.
Sigma's HSM is wonderful, the only third party to compete with the USM and SilentWave.
My Tamron is just about as sharp as the 24-70. However , the color rendition from the L's defy words. Maybe creamy??? Not sure how to put it. Warm is warm, and cool is cool. accurate I guess.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
I have a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM, and it is my favorite lens.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
Stupid question, but why do so many DSLR people shoot with zooms? Are primes simply not produced in great numbers anymore or have zooms become just that good? The more I get into modern photography the more I wonder just how much things have changed since my newest SLR (1982 Contax RTS II) was made. I think I'm operating with a lot of out-dated assumptions about primes being cheaper than zooms.
Or is it just that zooms have improved "enough" and that people prefer them for convenience or for the ability to avoid lens changing (and thereby avoid dust on the sensor)?
ZV
Or is it just that zooms have improved "enough" and that people prefer them for convenience or for the ability to avoid lens changing (and thereby avoid dust on the sensor)?
ZV
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
