Lens Comparable to "L" Series

[NMarti]

I am looking for a lens in the 24-70'ish zoom range that is comparable to the canon lenses in the "L" series. I love those lenses but they are so expensive. Are there brands that have the quality but not the price? I want it primarily for taking indoor photos, portraits, etc. I have a 70-200 L series but it I just don't have the "back-up" room to get shots inside because my rooms are not huge.

[Chuck S.]

Nancy, two lenses for you to consider:

Canon 17-40 mm f/4L: Relatively inexpensive for an "L" series lens ($630 right now at B&H); very nice range, about equivalent to 27-64 in film terms.

Canon 10-22 mm S series ($640): For that extra-wide view.

I have both. I use the 17-40 a lot; the 10-22 is more specialized for interiors where I can't step back any further. If I had to choose only one....it would be the 17-40.

I haven't purchased a third party lens in 20 years, so I don't know what's good. Lots of reviews out there, and I'm sure you'll get some other feedback here as well.

[kImages]

Nancy - Popular Photography has an article in the Feb 2008 issue - "Behind the Glass" Lens Special. It addresses 10 commonly asked lens questions. The one you've posed about third party glass is their #3. Their response is that lenses by independent makers are often as good as those by the camera makers. They note that Sigma's 18-200 f/3.5 - 6.3 DC OS AF zoom performed on par with Canon's 28 - 300 f/3.5 - 5.6l IS USM. Sigma streets for $549, Canon's $2,200. Not exactly the same lens but ...
Their recommendation - consult the lens test reviews. :o They didn't address the wider zooms, so I guess we'll have to find those ourselves. I've recently read that the Tokina 50 - 135mm f/2.8 had Excellent results. But like you I'm looking for a 24 - 70mm. I had a Tamron that just bit the dust and am considering the Sigma which I've seen reviewed as very good optically, but noisier (audible not digital) than Nikkor zooms.

[Diana]

Hi Nancy,

I was surprised when you mentioned the 24-70 lens because I got the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L for Christmas. I really can't help you with an off-brand equivalent, I don't know that much about lenses, being a newbie with the Rebel XTi. But, we must have the same interests in lenses. I bought the 70-200 F/4 earlier on your recommendation. They both are wonderful lenses.

Diana

[GaryK]

Nancy

I was using the Tamron in that range.(28-75??) I'll have to get the exact model. But it is the same one that Sherry was/is using for her Jazz shots, and I do believe Norm picked it up as well.
Seemed very nice until I dropped it. Still working but the filter ring is cracked so I have tucked it away. with plans to have it repaired.
Up here it ran in the $550 range.
I do not have any "L" glass or for that matter any really good Canon lenses so I can't compare the USM feel.

[NMarti]

Thanks for the input Chuck and Gary.

Diana - what do you think of the lens? I really like the 70-200 but need something that I can shoot indoors at a closer range and that lens seems to fit the bill.

Kim I'll check that out. Sounds interesting. I think mine came yesterday but haven't had a chance to read it yet.:rolleyes:

Chuck - that f4L sounds tempting at that price.

[Diana]

I haven't had the lens very long but love it so far. It is heavy, about 2 lbs. It's not a lens you want to walk around with around your neck for very long. I've used it with and without tripod successfully. It's great for portraits, lets a lot of light in. Canon has it on sale into February sometime, saving $80.

There are 93 customer reviews of this lens on Amazon here that helped me decide:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B00009R6WT/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_summary?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Hope this helps.

Diana

[Michel B]

I have the Sigma 17-70. I love it: wide and sharp. This range covers all my needs and the macro capability is great. Have a look at lens test comparisons, the optical quality is great. Fast focusing even at wide angle (f2.8). Mechanically, you feel a step in zooming in the middle range. Sturdy construction.

[Chuck S.]

I have the Sigma 17-70. I love it: wide and sharp. This range covers all my needs and the macro capability is great. Have a look at lens test comparisons, the optical quality is great. Fast focusing even at wide angle (f2.8). Mechanically, you feel a step in zooming in the middle range. Sturdy construction.

Nancy, it looks like Michel may have found the ideal choice! Here's the listing at B&H:

Sigma 17-70 for Canon (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/419582-REG/Sigma_669101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_5_DC_Macro.html)

Note that it's an S-class lens, meaning you won't be able to use it with that Canon 5D or 1DS-III that you're going to get someday......:D

Michel, it looks like a winner!

p.s. I googled "sigma 17-70 review" and found a lot of enthusiastic comments, particularly about optical quality. The one that struck me said that the lens was comparable if not better than my beloved Canon 17-40! Good to read the reviews, of course.....

[NickLewis]

Nancy,

Another lens you might consider is the Canon EF-S 17-85IS. Again, no use for your 1DsIII, but a lens upgrade will be small change when you buy that. :) (Although I have seen it said that it can be simply modded to fit a straight EF mount, but have no intention of trying personally.)

I bought one for a trip last summer, and it's now displaced my 17-40L (sorry Chuck), mainly because of the greater reach at the long end. It's an excellent general purpose lens. And the IS is nice to have when light levels are low and you can't use flash for whatever reason.

There's some barrel distortion at 17mm, so fully zoomed out photos of brick walls are a bit risky, but otherwise it's fine. And that's trivial to remove in PSE if you must use it, anyway.

Nick

[Michel B]

Nancy,

Another lens you might consider is the Canon EF-S 17-85IS. Again, no use for your 1DsIII, but a lens upgrade will be small change when you buy that. :) (Although I have seen it said that it can be simply modded to fit a straight EF mount, but have no intention of trying personally.)

I bought one for a trip last summer, and it's now displaced my 17-40L (sorry Chuck), mainly because of the greater reach at the long end. It's an excellent general purpose lens. And the IS is nice to have when light levels are low and you can't use flash for whatever reason.

There's some barrel distortion at 17mm, so fully zoomed out photos of brick walls are a bit risky, but otherwise it's fine. And that's trivial to remove in PSE if you must use it, anyway.

Nick

I have not tested the 17-85 IS myself, but there are many enthusiast users who love its versatility. The barrel distortion is not a problem at all, you can use plug-ins like Ptlens to correct it. If your choice is not pure architecture, you may even want to increase barrel distortion for group shots in small room. I often do this to avoid cone-shaped distortion of heads in corners!

[Codebreaker]

I have the Sigma 17-70 which I use as my standard lens. I think it performs extremely well. Is it as good as an 'L' series lens - I don't really care because I get out of it what I want. :)

Colin

[Chuck S.]

I have the Sigma 17-70 which I use as my standard lens. I think it performs extremely well. Is it as good as an 'L' series lens - I don't really care because I get out of it what I want. :)

Colin

Colin, well said! I've tried not to succumb to the snob appeal of 'L' lenses, although I haven't always succeeded....:o (only 2, though....and the cheapest of the line). Numerous good non-L and non-Canon options out there for sure.

[NMarti]

Thanks guys! I don't believe the "L" series lenses are all that superior and do own one but don't see spending the money if a comparable lens can be had for less. Michael that Sigma sure has some good reviews. The price is right too. Can't ask for more. This one definitely goes on my short list. (which is pretty short right now) I have a 70-300 (think that's right - haven't looked at for years) macro zoom Sigma lens for my Minolta film camera and it was a fantastic lens. I was never disappointed with the quality of shots from it.

[lowbone]

I think the Canon 17-85 would serve you well. It has IS and that is a real advantage shooting indoors with low light. If you can come up with a little more money get the Canon 17-55 f 2.8 IS. I sold my 17-40L after getting this lens. It is razor sharp even at f 2.8

[Chuck S.]

The other feature of the Sigma that's appealing to me is its macro capability, with focus down to 7 or 8 inches. Very versatile lens, it would appear.

[NMarti]

Yeah Chuck I noticed that. The old one I had had did fantastic macro shots so that was one thing that caught my eye right away.

[Codebreaker]

It claims Macro but to be a purist it only achieves about 1:2.3 at the 70mm end - but it's still very good.

Colin

[NMarti]

Hey Chuck - Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm-2-8-4-5-Autofocus-Digital/dp/B000LJAQ3Q/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1200672414&sr=8-2) has it cheaper. Gettin better all the time! :D

[Chuck S.]

Hey Chuck - Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm-2-8-4-5-Autofocus-Digital/dp/B000LJAQ3Q/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1200672414&sr=8-2) has it cheaper. Gettin better all the time! :D

Nancy, I've alternated my lens purchases between B&H and Amazon - no issues with either. Looks good!

[lexcell]

Nancy,
There have been some excellent suggestions here. The two third party equivalent lenses to the 24-70mm are:
Sigma AF 24-70mm 2.8 EX DG the EX is their version of Canon's L
Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 XR Di
They are both very sharp lenses and you would likely be satisfied with either one.

[NMarti]

Laurie
Thanks - the one I was looking at was not EX. That's what I am really looking for - one comparable to "L" series. The Sigma can be found for around $429 most places which is still quite a bit cheaper than the Canon. The Tamron can be had for around $350 and it has some pretty glowing reviews too. Boy - just when I thought I had it all figured out. :rolleyes::D

[NMarti]

Well my hubby called today and said he bought the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 XR for me so I'll try it out tonight. I don't know much about that lens since I didn't research it much but the guy at the camera shop convinced him it was as good at the 17-40 Canon lens. I'll let you know. Most reviews I'm looking at seem pretty high on it so I'm hoping it is a good one. I wasn't planning on getting it for a few more weeks but he wanted to surprise me.

[JulieM]

Lucky Nancy! Have fun with the new lens...

[GaryK]

Nancy

I just took my Tamron (the one Laurie mentioned) in for repairs yesterday (my fault :mad:).
I was really enjoying it and compared to the one I had with the camera it was waaay sharper.
Not a really a fair comparison as it was in a different class, but I was really worried I wouldn't be able to tell the difference after spending the money.:)

[NMarti]

Gary
Did you notice the lens noise being a problem. Some reviews really blast it and other seem to say "hey for the money I can put up with it". I have noticed with the few test shots that it is noisy so sneaking up on an animal would be out of the question but it really doesn't seem that bad to me. The few test shots so far seem beautifully saturated and sharp. Autofocus does have a little trouble in low light though.

[GaryK]

Nancy

I rarley sneek so hadn't noticed an issue :D and no noisier than the other lenses .. but they were not from the "L" series so I can't compare.

[Pet photos]

Nancy

I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 that works great. Not nearly as durable as a L series, but the price is right too.

[NMarti]

Art
Do you do many low light shots? Do you find auto focus to be a problem? I have to rely on it because my eyesight is not the best and the pictures seem slightly out of focus or "soft" to me even in overcast light. I'm thinking real hard about sending this one back. They said he could exchange it for a different lens if I didn't like it.

[Pet photos]

Most of my work is done with studio strobes, but I have used it outside, in cloudy conditions, and it worked fine. Not sure about LOW light though. The Tamron is very sharp. My Canon lens seem a little softer. Oh yes, the Tamron is a constant 2.8 through out its zoom range.

Hope this might help.

[lexcell]

Nancy,

A 2.8 lens not only lets in more light for achieving faster shutter speeds, it is brighter for the camera to focus as well. It will focus better than a slower lens in low light.

Also, one last comment about third party lenses...as I had mentioned earlier, third party lenses (Sigma & Tamron) are excellent quality right out of the box and will often rival the camera manufacturers own lenses. The big difference is how they stand up over time and resale value (but, hey, you spent less in the first place anyway).

[NMarti]

Thanks Laurie. I have been down with the flu and had not done too much testing so I can't really make a judgment call yet. It has given me some great shots with flash and in moderate to bright light without flash. I suspect the majority of the problem is just my lack of understanding of what I'm doing. :rolleyes: