Good wide angle lens
- Thread starter inferno
- Start date
Permabanned
cyKey said:
Working for me now I'm home, however at time of posting (at Uni) they were showing 'Don't Hotlink from me' images
Associate
I have both the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6.
Both lens are very good, but are not directly comparable.
The Tamron was a surprising beast - as another person has indicated, it is surprisingly sharp. Wide open it is very very good, stopped down it is fantastic. Here's a test shot :
The bad points of the Tamron are the lack of a full time manual focussing ring. You MUST set the lens to manual focus if you rotate the focus ring or else you risk damaging the mechanism. The Tamron will focus slower, and noisier than the Canon 17-40mm L lens. When this becomes a problem for me (if ever), then I'll think about replacing it. Optically, it matches the Canon nicely, no problems.
The Sigma is another beast altogether. I could live without the extreme wide angle I suppose (and just use the 17mm end of the Tamron), but having a superwide can deliver some delicious pictures. I saw so many good photos at 10mm that I had to have one. It's in the Sigma EX range, so the build quality is very high, and you get a nice case and hood with the lens (you just get a hood with the Tamron). At the end of the day, the Sigma is always going to produce unique and unusual shots at 10mm, that aren't completely realistic. You are going to get strange distortion, and unusual effects, but you can make this work in your favour. It's the charm of this lens. Again, optically the Sigma appears to be similar to the EF-S Canon 10-22mm.
If I am taking a shot that works at 17mm, or I require top quality, the Tamron gets used.
If I need to fit something in that 17mm struggles with, OR if I want to get an ususual / different type of wide angle shot, the brilliant Sigma gets the work.
Both lens are worth owning in my opinion.
Both lens are very good, but are not directly comparable.
The Tamron was a surprising beast - as another person has indicated, it is surprisingly sharp. Wide open it is very very good, stopped down it is fantastic. Here's a test shot :
The bad points of the Tamron are the lack of a full time manual focussing ring. You MUST set the lens to manual focus if you rotate the focus ring or else you risk damaging the mechanism. The Tamron will focus slower, and noisier than the Canon 17-40mm L lens. When this becomes a problem for me (if ever), then I'll think about replacing it. Optically, it matches the Canon nicely, no problems.
The Sigma is another beast altogether. I could live without the extreme wide angle I suppose (and just use the 17mm end of the Tamron), but having a superwide can deliver some delicious pictures. I saw so many good photos at 10mm that I had to have one. It's in the Sigma EX range, so the build quality is very high, and you get a nice case and hood with the lens (you just get a hood with the Tamron). At the end of the day, the Sigma is always going to produce unique and unusual shots at 10mm, that aren't completely realistic. You are going to get strange distortion, and unusual effects, but you can make this work in your favour. It's the charm of this lens. Again, optically the Sigma appears to be similar to the EF-S Canon 10-22mm.
If I am taking a shot that works at 17mm, or I require top quality, the Tamron gets used.
If I need to fit something in that 17mm struggles with, OR if I want to get an ususual / different type of wide angle shot, the brilliant Sigma gets the work.
Both lens are worth owning in my opinion.
Associate
I was looking for something similar which I will need for a wedding in April, and from looking at the reviews the Tamron does seem very good IF you get a good copy!
The 6 year warranty does sound good though but was wondering if anyone knew if this would extend to things imported from Hong Kong?
The 6 year warranty does sound good though but was wondering if anyone knew if this would extend to things imported from Hong Kong?
Soldato
Best of the bunch seems to be the Tokina from what I have read. 