Lens Tests by LightRules Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

photo sharing and upload

picture albums

photo forums

search pictures

popular photos

photography help

login

lightrules | profile | all galleries >> Lens Tests by LightRules

tree view | thumbnails | slideshow

Lens Tests by LightRules

May 8 2009 UPDATE: There's a time for everything under the heavens, and it looks like the time is right for this site to officially close down. My PBase site began in the Fall of 2004, and since then I have offered lens reviews in the way that I thought would be helpful to many. But the time has come for me to not renew my PBase dues and have decided to close down the site. Thanks to all of you for the almost 10 MILLION views this site has received over the past 5 years; I hope my reviews and comparisons have been useful. Best regards from southern California to all of you spanning this beautiful world, and please keep enjoying the light.

Default	My Lenses	Frequently Asked Questions	Miscellaneous
Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC HSM v. Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM	Sigma 10-20 F4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM v Tokina 12-24 F4 AT-X DX Pro	Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM v Tokina 11-16 F2.8 ATX DX PRO	"Popeye" v. "El Hombre"
Wide-Standard Zoom Test	The "Four-Pound Show-Down"	Canon 17-40 f4 L USM v. Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC	Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM v. Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro v. Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM	Canon 17-40 f4 L USM v. Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM	Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM v. Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM	Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 IS USM v Sigma 18-200 F3.5-6.3 OS DC
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di-II Test	17mm Test (4 Lenses)	Sigma 18-125 F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM	Sigma 18-200 OS v Canon 17-55 IS v Canon 24-105 IS
Stabilized SuperZoom Test	20mm Test (4 Lenses)	Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM v. Sigma 30 f1.4 EX DC HSM	Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro & Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di Macro
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro v. Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM	Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro v. Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM	The Standard Zoom Shoot-Out	Canon 28mm F1.8 USM v Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM
Sigma 30 f1.4 EX DC HSM v. Canon 35 f2	Sigma 30 f1.4 EX DC HSM v. Canon 35 f1.4 L USM - Test 1	Sigma 30 f1.4 EX DC HSM v. Canon 35 f1.4 L USM - Test 2	Sigma 30 F1.4 EX DC HSM v. Canon 50 F1.4 USM
Canon 50 F1.4 USM v. Canon 50 F1.8 MKII	50mm Primes	Sigma 50 F1.4 EX DG HSM v. Canon 50 F1.4 USM	Sigma 50-150 f2.8 EX DC HSM Test
Sigma 50-500 F4-6.3 EX DG HSM v Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6 L IS USM	Sigma 70-200EX f2.8 HSM v. Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS USM	3 Telephoto Zooms Tested	Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM v Canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM
4 "70-xxx" Lenses Tested	Shoot-Out at the OK "Canon" Corral	The "Fifteen-Pound Show-Down"	5 TeleZooms - Sibling Rivalry
Canon 85mm F1.8 USM v. Canon 100mm F2 USM	Canon 85 F1.8 USM v. Canon 135 F2 L USM	The Big Zoom Shoot-Out	Canon 135 F2 L USM v. Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro APO v. Canon 135mm f2 L USM	Sigma 150-500 F5-6.3 DG OS HSM	Canon 300 F2.8 L IS USM v. Sigma 300 F2.8 EX DG HSM	UV Test: $10 S&W MC v. $60 Hoya S-HMC
MultiCoated UV Test	2x TC Test: $80 Quantaray/Ritz v. $200 Kenko Pro 300	2x TC Test: Kenko TelePlus "Pro 300" v. Tamron "SP Pro"	1.4xTC Test: Tamron "F" v. Kenko "Pro 300"
Converted to EF Mount	Crumpler "6 Million Dollar Home" Review	Kata 3N1-20 Sling/Backpack

Guest		04-Jun-2009 01:25
LR - I have a domain (LENSFAX.COM), bandwidth, a server, and would like to discuss not just archiving/hosting, but actual commercial arrangements which you'd benefit from. S.HORTON on POTN (Sam) Contact me there via PM for my full contact information.

lightrules		03-Jun-2009 17:25
Thanks Brian for the words (and offer to host). We'll see where all this leads, but in the meanwhile, take care and enjoy the upcoming summer out East!

Fabrian		02-Jun-2009 18:01
Aw man, Jojo. There comes a time for all things.. I see someone may host your images for you, but before I saw that post I wondered if you were taking it down because you didn't want to pay for it anymore, didn't want to be bothered with it anymore or some other reason. I will miss my spot visits to your neck of the woods and am so very thankful for all of the effort you've invested here. If you really do want to keep your reviews alive and your current plans fall through, let me know - I've got more than enough space and bandwidth at my host. Be well, friend -

Guest		29-May-2009 11:33
Hi! It's sad seing the nr 1 site for Canon lens reviews going down. Good news about the other putting it up somewhere else, BUT it's still a little risky. Is there ANY chance that you could somehow (if you have it convient stored or can download from PBase, dont know how it works) send it or upload so that other people also have a chance of having the information avaliable? I would be most grateful. Thanks again for great info and for sharing this without charging anything. /M�rten

Dave Noordhoff		21-May-2009 19:58
That is certainly excellent news!! Dave

lightrules		19-May-2009 22:12
Thanks to all of you commenting on the site closing down and the well-wishes. Currently, someone has contacted me saying they will (pro-bono) set up a new site with a new domain and archive all the content here to there. So there is something underway that will, at least the hope is, be able to not let all this material "go to waste." I do not have a date when the site will be up, or the new domain name yet, but it's "in the works" (by someone in Europe). My involvement with it will be minimal, but at least the content here will be archived and available still for all to see. Thanks again everyone for the desire to support. I have never asked a penny from anyone and I don't plan to start now. LR

Dave Noordhoff		19-May-2009 13:47
I would also be willing to donate to keep such a fine site available ... please tell us what it would take! Dave

jay		18-May-2009 13:12
Hi Ligtrules, If we donated to help fund the site, will you reconsider??

Paul Jansen		16-May-2009 10:40
Hi lightrules I'm also sad to hear that your pbase reviews site will no longer keep us informed with many of the useful lenses that you faithfully critiqued. Thanks for the years of your valued input. Kind regards.

Craig Ryall		11-May-2009 16:51
Thanks for all your info over the last few years - may the light remain with you - always ;-)

Tio		11-May-2009 11:14
I'm sorry about your choice... I choose my last two lenses based on your reviews, and I'll really miss the knowledge you always put in your analysis. But overall, THANK YOU for what you did so far. Best regards from Italy

gulati		09-May-2009 13:09
Sorry to hear you are letting the site disappear. Thanks for your candid insight into a wide range of lenses. Hopefully you will continue to (freely!) contribute to DPReview. Happy shooting!

lightrules		02-May-2009 05:57
Paul, I don't have plans on testing the new 18-250 OS anytime soon. Check out other reviews and try to get a "feel" of it. I think at day's end all the superzooms will be comparable and do what they were made to do well enough and not do what they weren't made to do not very well...hope that made sense ;-) If it were me, I'd get the Tamron 18-270 VC as my all in one. The VC is extremely good, and the 6 years warranty is tops. Best regards.

Paul Jansen		01-May-2009 23:22
Hi LightRules Have you heard anything about the Sigma 18-250mm superzoom? I'm interested in purchasing this lens as my "one travel lens". Or might you be testing it sometime in the future? Thanks, in anticipation of your answer.

lightrules		24-Mar-2009 02:04
Khanh, I haven't had much time as of late to test out new lenses, and I don't see myself getting the new HSM lens anytime soon for testing. Sorry about that. If you find a review, feel free to post it here. Regards, LR.

Khanh M		23-Mar-2009 22:36
Lightrules, Do you plan on or have you already tested the new Sigma 24-70 EX HSM lens? I haven't seen much on this lens, and I was hoping maybe you got your hands on one... =)

lightrules		10-Mar-2009 04:23
mobley, in terms of AF speed, the Nikon is certainly quicker than the Tam or Tok. But in terms of IQ, they're on par. I think the Tamron offers the most bang for buck, though I would take the Tokina over the Tammy if money wasn't a consideration (and the Nikon over both if I could afford it).

mobley		10-Mar-2009 04:09
Hi Lightrules, I'm planning to buy a 2.8 mid range lens. Im confused with the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or the tokina 16-50mm f2.8. And setting aside the brands is there really a big quality and focusing difference among the tamron, nikon, and the tokina? Can u really tell the difference if this particular image was taken by a nikon 17-55mm f2.8 or a tokina 16-50mm f2.8 or a tamron 17-50mm f2.8. without knowing the brand of the lens?

piko		23-Feb-2009 03:50
hi there LR i'm looking for a zoom portrait lens and have been weighing between the Tokina 28-70 and the Tamron 28-75. i have also read your review about the Sigma 24-70 and some people have also suggested a Tamron 17-50. its really hard to decide when there are no copies to try out. perhaps you can help? basically what i am looking for is a wide/fast zoom portrait lens, looking into bokeh quality and also of course usability (focus lock performance) and also sharpness. would really love and appreciate your opinion on this many thanks :) (for your information, i am sacrificing my EF 100mm macro usm)

lightrules		22-Feb-2009 18:54
Dennis, my go-to lenses for APS-C are the 17-55 f2.8 IS and 30 f1.4 EX. I hope this helps answer your questions. I would say build around the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS for your body. Take care. LR

Guest		21-Feb-2009 04:04
HI Lightrules, I have another question please. I heard that the 2 lenses below are better than my kit lens 18-55 mm IS. 1. Is this true ? 1. Which one should I choose if I want to upgrade lens canon 24-70 L vs EFS 17-55mm on my XSi. Which one has better quality image ? Thanks !! Dennis

Guest		21-Feb-2009 03:22
Hi Lightrules, Thanks for your lovely website. I have an XSi and also a 50 mm prime. But I found it too restrictive for group photos indoor. I mainly shoot indoor, mainly at night. I was thinking of the new canon 24mm USM f 1.4 II . I was thinking of using this lens for my walk around lens Do you think this is a good idea ? I heard that the quality of prime lens are better than the zoom lenses like the 17-55mm EFS. How about 35mm prime canon lens ? I am gearing towards the new canon 24mm lens. Would love to hear your thoughts please. Dennis :-D

att		09-Feb-2009 16:38
I have a 50D with canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS L, cant decide which tc should i go for a kenko x2 or a canon x2?

lightrules		07-Feb-2009 16:03
Sahin, I've no plans to test the 1750 against the 2470 head to head. I have done them in separate tests though. As you know, they are very different lenses. Best regards.

Eljolras		07-Feb-2009 13:46
Dear LR, first of all thanks for these tests and comments. I would personally like to see how Tamron 17-50 F2.8 will perform against to Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DG. I know the focal lenghts are different and these lenses are not directly comparable maybe. But hey that's why I like your tests! Your testing criterias are closer to real life conditions instead of specs on the papers. What do you say about this comparison? Another point is there are many people who want to see how the lenses they want to buy will perform againts to kit lenses (18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS for example). Just some ideas possibly you alredy did think. Thanks again. Sahin

ty		29-Jan-2009 17:32
Well, looking at Sigma's site, it looks like the 80-400mm OS has been discontinued recently but they are still available for sale new at stores.

Tom Yi		29-Jan-2009 17:29
Don't forget the old but optically fine Signa 80-400 OS. It does not have a HSM/ring AF motor, so that may be an issue though.

lightrules		15-Jan-2009 00:13
There is no prime lens with stabilization that won't "break the bank" (generally-speaking). You can look into 3 specific zooms though in the Canon 100-400 IS, Sigma 120-400 OS, and the Sigma 150-500 OS. Best regards.

Guest		14-Jan-2009 22:24
Thanks for the advice regarding the Tamron 18 - 270 and incompatability with a TC. Can you recommend a prime lens of 400 or 500, with image stabilization that won't break the bank? Thanks. Gerry

lightrules		13-Jan-2009 03:09
Gerry, the 18-270 VC is not designed to work well with a TC. I wouldn't recommend it. You'll have a good amount of tele-reach with the 270mm end, so plan to use the lens "native" without any TC.

gerry		13-Jan-2009 02:16
I have a Nikon D80 with a Tamron 18-270 VC lens. Can you recommend some 1.4 teleconverters that will function well with this combination?

lightrules		09-Jan-2009 04:50
Thuravi, welcome to my site. You ask a very interesting question that many have wondered: Will Canon come out with a 500mm f5.6 IS? No one really knows; it is all speculation at this point. But even a lens like that would cost at least $2000 USD. Many are clamoring for a 400 f5.6 IS, but that wouldn't make as much noise as a 500 f5.6 IS. So I don't have anything of substance to tell you at this point. We can only wait and see!

Thuravi Kumaaran		09-Jan-2009 04:17
Dear Lightrules, Thanks for your compassion.Canon's 18-55 IS &55-250 IS series lenses are small, light & nice optics, for the budget. Can we expect a 250-500 or 600 IS lens of the same kind from Canon for the buget people? with regards & love Thuravi Kumaaran

Guest		27-Dec-2008 07:36
Thanks LightRules. "as good or better optics and IS, and a total bargain" is all I needed to hear from you. 55-250 it is then for me. Have a wonderful New Year.

lightrules		25-Dec-2008 05:21
Greetings. No plans at all for a 55-250/70-300 test. I recommend the 55-250 though for APS-C. It's much cheaper, smaller, lighter, as good or better optics and IS, and a total bargain. The 70-300 is a fine telezoom, but the 55-250 offers more for your money IMO. Best regards.

Guest		24-Dec-2008 23:51
Hey Lightrules, thanks for doing all these very informative tests. Do you plan on doing a direct comparison test between the very popular 55-250 IS & the 70-300IS? I'd like to know which one is sharper between 70 & 250. Happy Holidays.

lightrules		11-Dec-2008 16:51
James, the 18-200 OS is a very popular lens and gets high marks from user/owner reviews. Amazon.com has quite a few comments there on it. Regarding panning, I believe it is automatically detected. Check with Sigma on this. LR

James Deakin		11-Dec-2008 16:37
Ok, I succumbed... Just bought the 18-200 Sigma OS. just waiting for my first set of pics to come out of the oven. Question: Is the OS two stage? Can it detect panning? I understand the 17-85 couldn't

lightrules		09-Dec-2008 16:00
James, see my test here http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/superzoomtest . The Sigma 18-200 OS does not have HSM for Canon mount (only Nikon mount). It's an excellent superzoom at its price point.

James Deakin		09-Dec-2008 08:53
Hey Lightrules. After taking your advice, I was all set to get the 18-270 Tamron. Problem is there is no stock available. What do you think of the 18-200 Sigma OS HSM? Comparable? In quality at least?

Guest		04-Oct-2008 03:18
Thanks a Lot. Steve

lightrules		03-Oct-2008 15:56
The 7-2 f4 IS with a 1.4x on the 50D will make for an excellent set up. I think you'll be extremely happy. Take care and enjoy. LR

Guest		03-Oct-2008 12:57
Thanks a lot, if I go with 7-2f4 IS + 1.4x TC those problem won't exist on my 50D? Steven

lightrules		03-Oct-2008 03:45
The 7-2 f4 IS with a 2xTC gets you to 400mm but at the cost of being at f8, which on a non-1 series body will deny you AF. So it is not only slower than the Bigmos, it will not deliver as good IQ with much higher CA levels. That is why the Bigmos is the better wildlife lens. However, the Canon lens is excellent native and still very impressive with a 1.4x.

Guest		03-Oct-2008 01:23
How does the IQ of 7-2f4is with 2x TC. Will it still better than Bigmos? i've decided to go with canon 24-105L Thanks for your help. Steven

lightrules		02-Oct-2008 15:40
Hi Steven, the 7-2 f4 IS is extremely sharp with fantastic contrast. There are reports of close focusing problems, but I don't know how rampant this is. I found the lens extremely good, arguably the best telezoom I've used to date. The Bigmos (150-500 OS) is a better wildlife lens, but it won't produce the overall IQ that the Canon L IS lens does. If you want to go wildlife zoom on a budget, the Bigmos is a fine choice. It's a matter of giving up something; that's a general rule. As for the 17-50 or 24-105, it again comes down to priorities. Feel free to email me specifically what you want to shoot and your needs, and I can help you fine tune your decision.

Guest		02-Oct-2008 14:23
Hi I have a question here. I'm in position on getting a telephoto zoom lens. I'm considering canon 70-200F4 IS or Sigma 150-500. I really like your review on 150-500, however from your review on 70-200 f4. it looks like its got really sharp image and very good IQ. I'm afraid on giving up the sharpness if I go to Sigma lens or are they comparable in IQ and sharpness. I'm going to use it for wildlife photography. one more thing to pair up with lens above, should I get tamron 17-50 or canon 24-105. Currently I only got 50mm f 1.4 and tokina 11-16. your tests really helped me to decide on my tokina. Thanks a lot. Steven

lightrules		02-Oct-2008 03:34
Mike, I don't know at this point. I have a good amount of interest to see how the new Tamron 18-270 VC performs though. But at this point, I cannot say whether I will have a test between these lenses. Thanks for the interest; I will take note of it.

IS USM		01-Oct-2008 17:12
Hello Lightrules! I�ve had much use of your tests, thanks a lot! I wonder, are we going to see a comparison test of the Ef-s 18-200 IS and Sigma 18-200 OS in the near future? Have a great day! /Mike -Sweden

piko		03-Sep-2008 03:59
as always, man ythanks LR

lightrules		30-Aug-2008 16:43
The 100 f2.8 Macro can certaily take a filter, but I wouldn't recommend it. If you for some reason really want to use a UV filter on it, get a good one like the Hoya SHMC or B+W MRC.

piko		30-Aug-2008 15:45
yea, hope to see a comparison on the new canon n the sigma 18-200s. btw LR, does the canon 100mm f/2.8 usm macro take a filter? is it needed? i am getting one soon but dont know whether i should get a filter as well as i have been getting mixed suggestions. as always, thanks

Miles		26-Aug-2008 08:21
Hi LR, the efs 18-200is will be out soon, hoping to see a comparison test between the sigma 18-200os and 18-200is. ive been stalling on getting the os to wait for the canon version, i hope its worth the wait. thanks!

lightrules		22-Aug-2008 14:50
piko, you don't want to stick two UV filters on one lens. It is just redundant and will affect IQ and flare, let alone vignetting.

piko		22-Aug-2008 07:56
dear Lr actually its one of my friends. his reason was that if the uv filter broke, the debris will fall on the second layer of the uv filter and not onto the face of the lens' front glass. i find the reason makes sense thus was interested to know your opinion :) thanks

lightrules		22-Aug-2008 03:59
Why would you use 2 UV filters on 1 lens at the same time? I would not advise it as it is unnecessary, will cause flare and hot spots, and probably also vignetting.

piko		22-Aug-2008 03:36
LR i've read about your multicoated UV filter test and was wondering, is it ok to use for example 2 uv filters at one go? does it affect optics a lot? thanks

lightrules		20-Aug-2008 17:09
Go with the Sigma lens because of its OS; it is invaluable on superzooms. See some sample travel pics here http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/norcalpics . Or, you can wait for the new Tamron 18-270 VC to be released, which might be a while.

piko		20-Aug-2008 06:26
LR i'm back again :) interested to know whether you have any idea if sigma 18-200 OS is to be put to compete against the tamron 18-250, in terms of image quality thanks a lot :)

Tim Wood		16-Aug-2008 09:27
Hi LR, Just wanted to say thanks for the review of the canon 50 vs Sigma 50. Tim

lightrules		03-Aug-2008 14:43
The 7-3 IS isn't the ideal portrait lens, but it will suffice if you're not too picky and not comparing it to something like a 100f2 or 135f2. Enjoy your photography.

piko		03-Aug-2008 13:17
hi LR forget the sigma 18-200 vs tamron 18-250. i'll be getting the sigma soon. thanks for the advice... am wondering, what is your take on using a canon 70-300 IS USM as a portrait lens?

piko		27-Jul-2008 09:18
dear LR any take on the sigma 18-200 OS vs the Tamron 18-250? and what about sharpness wise, which one is more consistent? thanks

lightrules		21-Jul-2008 16:15
cyber, check out my test between these two lenses. Both lenses can be excellent performers optically. It all comes down to whether you need that 24mm FL of if 28mm is enough. Hard to go wrong with either really. Best wishes.

cyberspacegenie		21-Jul-2008 12:02
Hi Lightrules, Your reviews are great - really helpful. I have a couple of quick questions regarding the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8.EX Macro. I have 450D and am deciding between these 2 lenses. The Tamron generally seems to be more popular but I have read somewhere that the AF slips over time. The price, size and IQ seem to make it a popular choice, but the build quality on the Sigma generally seems to be better, but its more expensive, bigger and heavier. Do you think the Sigma is worth the higher cost? And if you personally had to choose just one of them which would it be?

lightrules		05-Jul-2008 15:29
Hi Tim, I thought about doing the new "50" comparison test but it looks like it won't be happening anytime soon. Thanks for the interest though.

Teadrinkingtim		05-Jul-2008 10:33
Hi LR, I'm sure there's a few people wondering - Are you planning to test the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 vs Canon 50mm f1.4? That'd be great! If you are (fingers crossed) could you also compare it to the Canon 85mm f1.8 too? Thanks!!! Tim

lightrules		03-Jul-2008 04:46
I think there is a huge difference between the 18-200 and 28-135 in terms of usable focal range. So for my money, the Sigma is the much better choice for APS-C.

piko		03-Jul-2008 02:20
hi LR, i am very interested to know what is your take on the canon 28-135 IS USM and the Sigma 18-200 OS...

lightrules		02-Jul-2008 16:23
piko, you can probably find a FOV comparison between those two lenses somewhere on the web. But certainly the fisheye will be wider, but I can't tell you exactly at what point it is wider as you zoom in vis-a-vis the 11-16 at 11mm. Look around the web and I'm sure you can find it. Take care.

piko		28-Jun-2008 16:14
thanks LR, i would have thought so. i want to offer my thanks to you for your reviews as well. they are very informative. thanks! :)

lightrules		28-Jun-2008 15:22
Greetings. If you have an external flash, most any lens will work fine for the indoor wedding dinner. If you are using natural light, I would recommend a fast prime. I don't know your budget, so I can't give any real concrete suggestions. But a flash gun might be your best investment of all.

piko		28-Jun-2008 15:13
hi the LR i'm about to shoot for a wedding dinner soon and is wondering what lens would you recommend. actually i'm looking at the canon 28-135 IS and also the Sigma 18-200 Os, but then again, are those going to be good enough in case light is low? i imagine i wont have much time changing lens at that time thus i will need a good range, perhaps better with IS... may thanks for your time

SoCalHaze		12-Jun-2008 21:55
That is excellent news. I need to make a decision between the 18-200 and 18-125 within 3 weeks. Gives me plenty of time to decide. I have the excellent 30 f1.4 as my main lens currently am looking to add a travel zoom.

lightrules		12-Jun-2008 20:36
I actually have one coming in today (6/12/08). I'll post my comments shortly.

SoCalHaze		12-Jun-2008 20:10
Hello there, have you got your hands on the Sigma 18-125 OS? Impressions vs the 18-200 OS ?

lightrules		22-May-2008 20:58
Yes, there is only 1 version of the 18-200 OS in Canon mount. I think you'll find the lens very convenient with good image quality. Best wishes.

10-Dee-Q		22-May-2008 20:32
thx alot , you made up my mind then, i'll get the sigma, but problem is that it's hard to find sigma lens in my country, apart for mcanon/nokion lens, the only popular lens is tamron, sigma is not quite popular in my country, anyway i'll try to find this gems though :P thre's only one model of sigma 18-200 OS for canon mount right ? cause i've seen on the net that there's a HSM version but only fo nikon mount , CMIIW. is there much difference in af speed between those ? anyway thx for the advice, hopefully i'll be satisfied by it :P

lightrules		22-May-2008 20:20
I originally had the 18-200 OS, then I went to the 1855 IS and 55-250 IS combo. I used the Sigma for a trip up to no-Cal, and then I took the Canon combo with me to a vacation in Utah. Looking back, I much preferred the Sigma. I found the 1855 limiting and having to change lenses constantly was a drag for this family-type vacation. I currently only have the 55-250 IS because it's a nice, lightweight, IS tele lens. But in terms of the Sigma versus the two Canons, I prefer the all-in-one OS lens myself. Here are some pictures from the no-Cal trip with the Sigma http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/norcalpics .

10-Dee-Q		22-May-2008 20:05
Thx , lightrules. i don't mind changing lens between tele and wide if the IQ is much difference, but if the IQ it's very much the same , then i'll go with the sigma. can you please decide for me ?? i've been thinkin bout this for weeks, and i don't want to bring or buy the wrong lens for this trip, thank you very much.

lightrules		22-May-2008 16:16
I used the 18-200 OS and 30 f1.4 combo for a trip and it was excellent. Very minimal switching of lenses, and the IQ was more than sufficient (the zoom). The Canon combo is another very nice option, but it's one more lens to add. It comes down to convenience and if switching out lenses more often is bothersome for you. Me personally, I'd go with the well built Sigma combo in this case. My 18-200 OS was superb especially at the 18mm and 200mm marks.

10-Dee-Q		22-May-2008 14:39
hi, lightrules, sorry to bother you again but i'm going for holiday next week, and really need your opinion, Okay, i have Sigma 30 f/1.4 on my bag already, now what i need is a decent lens or two to cover from wide to tele end, i have 70-200 f4L but i won't bring it on holiday cause it's just to big , what i have in mind is either Sigma 18-200 OS or Canon 18-55 IS + Canon 55-250 IS combo They cost about the same and provide me with about the same FL and aperture too. which one can give me better IQ in most of the focal length ? pros and cons? i do travel a lot and i need to travel light that's why i'm gonna sell my 70-200 f4L soon cause it's just too big for me, my cam is 450D. thank you .

Guest		22-May-2008 08:05
where is 50 1.4 vs 85 1.8 test? :)

lightrules		05-May-2008 02:08
Jon, I would without a doubt take the 10-17, 17-55, and the 70-300. I would not bring the 1755 and the 24105; no need for one of them. Have a great trip and send me a link with pics after you're all done.

jon peters		05-May-2008 00:02
Thanks for all the posted tests. My Q. is: which lenses would you take to Vietnam from Canada. Just got the Xsi (40D good, but gets heavy after a day trecking in warm climates)...and have : 1. Tokina 10-17 which I plan to take cause it's lightwt., 2. Canon 17-55 2.8 cause it's fast and sharp but short ;( 3. now I can't decide--have the 24-105...again, the reach is limited---ie for boats on the water, or detail shots , or, 4. the 70-300 IS---long enough but maybe too long in the bag. Then I'm considering taking my 85 1.8 with tc for longer detail shots--not tooo heavy, ---or getting the Sigma 18-200 os ...a bit slow though, as I'd need to shoot at F8 for sharp shots. So it's that 3rd lens that I can't decide on. And I don't want to carry more than 2 lenses at once. (leave one in the room) Thanks a lot. Jp ...www.jonrp.smugmug.com

lightrules		04-May-2008 14:18
I have no plans to test the 28-300 VC. For FF, I would get the Tamron. But for 1.6x, I would get the Sigma.

10-Dee-Q		04-May-2008 08:56
Hi ligtrules, i bought the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and it's very very awesome :P now i want to buy the sigma 18-200 DC OS but when i go to the store i saw Tamron 28-300 VR question is will you in anyway gonna test the tamron ? cause if the IQ on the tamron is bettter, i might as well buy the tamron and keep my canon IS kit lens :P as the tamron have longer reach than the sigma. thx anyway :P

lightrules		01-May-2008 17:40
F1.4 is very narrow DOF, but as far as using it at f1.4, it's a sharp lens. IMO you are as good as you are going to get with this 30mm lens. F1.4 isn't ideal for group shots, but indoors without flash, it's a super lens. It's one of my most highly recommended lenses.

10-Dee-Q		01-May-2008 17:13
thx lightrules i've set my mind , im gonna get the sigma 18-200 and sigma 30mm i;ll definetelly keep the 30mm and sold away the 18-200 when i've become more serious later on :P one last question , does the sigma 30mm suitable for group indoor shoot handheld no flash ? reason i'm asking is that i'm afraid it will be unsharp on the corner and also does it suitable for indoor sport as well ? well focal range is not important but if let says i set it to f/1.4 will th ewhole person/subject be in focus ? sorry for my ignorance , i;m newbie, thankx once again, this page is really helpfull and your reply was fast and helpfull aswell :P

lightrules		01-May-2008 17:02
With my copies of the 18200 OS and 1855 IS, I found the OS lens to be at least as good overall. The one area where the Canon was better was at about 35mm at the borders. Otherwise, the Sigma IMO is better optically. It is also built much better, and it can take a CP filter without a rotating barrel. So it might be your better bet. As for the 30, yes it is ideal for indoor, no flash photography. Enjoy.

10-Dee-Q		01-May-2008 17:00
and one more thing does the sigma 30mm f1.4 suitable for let say group photo indoor with no flash ?

10-Dee-Q		01-May-2008 16:34
thx for the reply hmmm so in other words, you suggest that the canon 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS have slightly better IQ compared to Sigma 18-200 os ? provided they have about same focal range and aperture size? reason is i want to keep my lens to 2 at the moment so it's convinience to bring anywhere :P and problem with the canon is rotating front element , so i can;;t use CPL :( i've seen ur review in 18-55 IS vs sigma 18-200 OS but being newbie i still can't decide which one is better, if only you can confirm that the sigma is better even only in 18-55 range compared to the canon, i'll surelly buy the sigma and sigma 30 f/1.4 :P

lightrules		01-May-2008 15:45
10DQ, you have some good options to choose from. But it's difficult for me (or anyone else) to answer your question since it all depends on what you want to shoot mostly and what your style is. I like the 18-200 OS for its fantastic convenience, but I think the Canon IS combo gives slightly better IQ overall. None of the lenses you list can match the 30 f1.4 in pure IQ. My recommendation is to build around the Sigma 30 as that is one heck of a lens. Can you do the Sigma 30 and the two Canon IS lenses?

10-Dee-Q		01-May-2008 15:11
Hi Ligthrules, please advise me on this one, i bought Canon 450D about a month ago , so now i'm thinkin of buying some lens. my options is : #1> Sigma 18-200 DC OS for everyday general walk around lens Sigma 30mm f/1.4 For indoor low light and night shoot. #2> Canon 18-55mm IS kit lens for general walk around lens Canon 55-250mm IS for outdoor and stuff #3> Tamron17-50mm f/2.8 for general walk around and indoor low light Tamron 28-300 VC for outdorr and stuff of all the combination above which one will produced best IQ and which one is the best for me ? all the combination have almost the same range and cost is about the same too. btw i've tried the tamron 17-50 but i found that the IQ is not as sharp as the canon 18-55 kit IS lens maybe that my friend's tamron is bad copy , but from what i see the colour and contrast is lacking and the image doesn't quite "pop" as the canon IS kit lens. i do not want to start wrongly so i'm asking a pro like you, thank you very much.

lightrules		22-Apr-2008 05:03
Wow, as of tonight, you are right. It is in stock, even though it was only pre-order status the other day. This is good news. Hopefully it will begin to trickle into other dealers. Thanks for the head's up.

Jim C		22-Apr-2008 03:17
LR, It looks like Canoga camera has it in stock!!! I'd love to see your test.

lightrules		22-Apr-2008 02:32
Jim, I am indeed awaiting the US release of the 11-16 f2.8. The initial reports look superlative. I sold off my 12-24 DX because I knew this new offering was the one I wanted, as good as the 12-24 was. I think the best 3-lens zoom setup is going to be the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS, and Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS. I currently have the last two, so now I am just waiting for the new Tokie. Constant f2.8 from 11 through 200mm is going to be a boon. The image quality of the 11-16 should be outstanding, and the very bright VF, super accurate AF (being f2.8), and low-light handholding ability will be too hard to resist. So you are right: I can't wait!

Jim C		22-Apr-2008 00:04
Hi LR, I see you are very interested in the Tokina 11-16 2.8. Currently , I have the Tokina 12-24 along with the Tamron 28-75, but now I am switching to the Tamron 17-50 (just purchased) and am thinking about selling the Tokina 12-24 for the Tokina 11-16. I haven't needed 2.8 on the Tokina, but wouldn't mind an extra 1mm on the wide side ( along with the quality and contrast this lens provides). What do you think ? Why would you be interested in this lens ?

lightrules		19-Apr-2008 07:18
It's more appropriate to compare the 60 macro and 100 macro. The 100 f2 is another type of lens. Decide which focal length you want most and how much working distance you need, then go with that lens. All the macros are very sharp.

BP		18-Apr-2008 21:20
Hi, I'm debating between getting the EF-S 60mm Macro and 100mm f/2 for a crop body. Which would you go for? Is the 100mm too long in Your opinion? Thanks for this excellent resource!!! -BP

lightrules		04-Apr-2008 02:08
See this test http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/zoomzoom

10-Dee-Q		03-Apr-2008 14:38
thx for the reply, anyway i'm gonna ask some more :P I feel i need the IS cause my hand is a little bit shaky so i dont think i should buy the tamron :( okay to narrow down, compared to Canon kit lens 18-55IS , how does the sigma compared ? thank you .

lightrules		03-Apr-2008 13:50
You have some good choices there. If you prefer speed, the Tamron is your best bet. Every lens choice is a compromise of some sort. You may also want to wait for the new Sigma 18-125 OS HSM. That looks like a nice lens too. But overall I recommend f2.8 glass, when possible. The 18-200 OS lens is a better lens IMO than the 1785 IS. Best wishes.

10-Dee-Q		03-Apr-2008 07:04
Hi There, first of all, thx for the reviews, it does help beginner like me :P Anyway i'm buying the new Canon 450D and still can't decide which lense to get. i've certainly will buy the canon 50mm f1.8 MKII, but i need another zoom walkaround lens. in my mind i have: -Canon 17-85 IS USM -Canon 18-55 IS -Tamron 17-50 f 2.8 -Sigma 18-200 DC OS actually one of these gonna be my primary lense, while the 50mm prime is my low light or potrait lense to get nice bokeh. which one of those will you recommend me to get ? i mainly shoot indoor, handhelds, without flash, but sometimes outdoor too but mostly on wide end, however a bit tele is a welcome bonus for me :P initiallly i wanted the tamron but afraid cause it doesn't have IS and like i said i shoot a lot indoor, handhelds, without flash so i'm afraid it gonna cause some trouble can you guide me here ? my first choice is actually canon 17-55 but it's too expensive for a beginner like me. so please help me here :P thanks a lot.

lightrules		17-Mar-2008 22:25
Kenny, thanks for the kind words. I am glad this site has been useful for you. As for the white balance issue, if you shoot RAW, this is precisely one of the advantages of shooting RAW: WB adjustment is simply a matter of moving the WB slider. Easy and simply. Yes the Tamron lens does render a warmer color cast, but again, this is an easy fix in RAW. Take care.

Kenny		17-Mar-2008 17:47
Hey f/jojo... I've been a big fan of this page for such a long time. You have done many tests and I wanted to thank you for all the help you have provided to everyone. I was wondering, I own a Tamron 17-50, there seems to be a slight warm color cast to my photos, I shoot raw, what would be the best way to remove the color cast? Do you change the white balance in Raw or use a different tool? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!

lightrules		12-Mar-2008 01:51
Mark, I've got an idea: how about you go find PetKal and just hug one another? ;)

mark richman		12-Mar-2008 01:41
MDJAK: Amazingly good tests. Must have taken an enormous amount of time and energy. So, would you please do some Nikon lens tests now. Please. ;) me

Michal		17-Dec-2007 19:51
Hey man, thank you for all the work you have done here. I think it has been appreciated by a lot of folks coming here for an advice, myself included. So wish you good light and many good pictures!

Craig Ryall		17-Dec-2007 15:57
Thank you Lightrules for your practical efforts over the last few years - may not always have been 100% scientific but was a real boon to the average Joe user in getting to see the 'real' difference. Best wishes in whichever part of the light you move on to ahead. Craig

Pereira		25-Nov-2007 17:44
It would be interesting if you could get your hands on the new 18-55 IS kit lens for the coming test also.

lightrules		20-Nov-2007 18:19
Thanks for the comments on the UV filter tests. As for CP filters, I don't have any direct comparisons but I would recommend you look at the Kenko Pro 1 CP filters that are available on eBay. I do know those to be excellent, and they are quite a bit less costly than the B+W or Heliopan versions.

mikey p		20-Nov-2007 17:31
your uv filter comparisons were very imformative. thank you. do you have any insights on comparisons between different brands of polarizing filters?

lightrules		18-Nov-2007 16:49
Michal, for all my lens tests/comparisons, a Canon 20D body is used with Parameter 2 setting, JPG/Large/Fine, and simply cropped. So in this sense my tests are not comparable "elsewhere". I don't shoot ISO charts or use Imatest. I hope this is helpful.

Michal		18-Nov-2007 12:56
Hi, maybe this has been asked here already but just for my understanding on into what degree your pictures can be compared with other crop samples: Do you use any either post- or in-camera sharpening to the images provided in the test galleries? What is your procedure? thanks

lightrules		03-Nov-2007 04:02
IMO your best bet is the Tokina 16-50. I just don't see any benefit the 17-40L has over the Tokina on 1.6x. You get better range and f2.8 with the Tokina. Those are hard to beat. Unless you get a dud copy of the Tokina, it seems a much better choice. Take care and let me know what ends up working out for you best.

lightrules		02-Nov-2007 19:53
PDub, I have yet to get my hands on a Canon mount of the Tokie 1650. Even though they are available now, they still seem to be a "rare" item. I don't know when the comparison will come (i.e., when I can get my hands on one), but once I do I will post my findings. Have you thought about the Tamron 1750? Build quality isn't the best of the bunch, but price and optics are nice.

PDub		02-Nov-2007 18:14
Hey Light! When can we expect a Tokina 16-50 Canon mount review or comparison? If all goes well for the tokina, Ill probably get it over the 17-40L and 18-50 EX macro.

thw		30-Sep-2007 05:48
Wow, the story of the famous copy of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Macro is beginning to sound more and more like those desirable mythical objects in fantasy novels (e.g. the eldar wand in Harry Potter, the ring in Lord of the Rings etc etc). He, he...

lightrules		25-Sep-2007 18:11
The Nikon mount of the Tokina 1650 has actually been available for several months now here in the US. The Canon mount has recently become available, although I have yet to get my hands on one. Yes the price is in the mid-$600's, but I do think it's a "fair" price for it. The reason I say that is the Canon 1755IS is about $1000, and the Sigma and Tamron versions are about $400. Putting the Tokina near the middle of these other lenses seems right to me. If the Tokina were $400 (or even $500), I don't see why anyone would not choose it over the S or T. The perks of this lens are still it is the only 16mm constant f2.8 zoom for APS-C with significantly better build-feel over the others. So IMO there will be some who will buy it even though it's in the $650's. I am sure Tokina thought it through as well before listing it at this price. It will not out-sell the S or T since most simply want a nice f2.8 APS-C zoom and S and T are still the more "popular" lens makers are they are cheaper. Just like the Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20 --- the Sigma is way more popular, but the Tokina is still considered a superlative lens optically and of course with its build. I believe the 1650 will be an excellent, higher-end lens that won't be more popular than the alternatives but will still hit a "niche" with a good many photogs.

tol1l1yboy		25-Sep-2007 16:25
Not sure if you saw this Light but the tokina 16-50 is available now for nikon. Not sure how long it has been out in the US but the price is $660! I can't imagine it is going to be THAT much better than the Tamron/Sigma alternatives especially when you consider that they are hundreds less.

akbarfoto		24-Sep-2007 20:03
thanks for pointing PZ about 24-70 sigma. it was interesting. I have 24-70 sigma for some time now, and yes you are responsible for it. I did a test with my friends canon 28-70 L, and the finding was similar. it won center sharpness at every range and f stop, but it looses a litte and the edge. overall, i'm a very happy customer.

Lee		22-Sep-2007 02:26
Will your zoom and prime lens galleries be un-password protected any time soon? You wrote some reviews/comments in there that I wanted to refer to, but they've been inaccessible for some time now.

lightrules		07-Sep-2007 00:38
We had a stellar time in SF. That's quite a lively city. Parking is a pain, especially around the Union Square area (where we were staying), but all in all, we have some good memories and hopefully some good photos to savor them with. It's good to hear you went to Yosemite; it's my favorite N.P. As for a wide angle, it's hard to go wrong with the Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, and Tokina 12-24. Best wishes.

Curt		06-Sep-2007 19:58
Thanks for your opinion. How did your San Francisco trip go? I saw your pictures from last years trip. Great stuff in Yosemite. I just had a week vacation to Yosemite and San Fran in mid August. I took my 20D and Tamron 28-75mm, I really like the Tamron but it just wasn't wide enough for Sequoias in the Mariposa Grove, Golden Gate Bridge ect..so i'm on the hunt for a real wide angle lens.

lightrules		06-Sep-2007 14:48
Curt, the Tokina is still hard to find here in the US. I have yet to get my hands on one (though I have handled a Nikon mount). So for me the jury is still out. I suspect it will be a solid performer with excellent DX build. But the price is quite a bit higher than the Tamron. At this point, I'd say go with the 1750. It's a good lens at a very good price. Enjoy the light.

Curt		06-Sep-2007 10:00
I'm still deciding on getting a mid zoom, you keep mentioning the Tokina 16-50mm but have you bought one yet? I know its sold on camera stores like www.adorama.com. I've pretty much narrowed it down to either the Tokina 16-50mm and Tamron 17-50mm. The Tokina looks nice, I'm one with you on build quality and it looks like it shouldn't disappoint

Gerard		26-Aug-2007 05:44
After being on a, too long, hiatus from the world of the Lens, I decided to jump back into it by purchasing a 30D, my very first digital. It's been practically attached to me ever since. Recently, however, a friend of mine decided to start a small rag and, knowing my fondness for all things Canon, he's asked me to take part in this little venture. At first, the answer was no. I've been too long out of the game to be "published" just yet. But, his offer to foot the bill for some new glass was too hard to pass up, lowly college student that I am. I've been bouncing back and forth between the 70-200L f2.8 IS and it's little brother for a while now. I'd like the 2.8 but it's such a monster. I doubt I'll be in any tripod friendly environments. Plus, I just can't talk myself into handing my friend a bill for almost $2,000. Hey, he is a friend after all. Your reviews of the f/4's performance have helped to make the decision a lot easier. I just wanted to say thanks for all the reviews and all the hard work you put into your site. You've definitely made a tough decision a lot easier.

lightrules		22-Aug-2007 20:03
Hi Lee, while I have already pre-ordered the 40D, and while I do intend to post some general comments on it, I don't plan for any in-depth review of it. I think Phil at DPR and a few other resources around the net will do a fine job of reviewing the new body, so look out for that. Thanks for the comments.

Lee		22-Aug-2007 19:15
Out of curiosity, will you be doing any kind of a review / evaluation of the 40D when you finally upgrade? I know that you usually stick to lens reviews but you probably know what to look at in camera body performance as well, so I was curious.

Guest		12-Jul-2007 09:28
Well, I think I never bashed the lens like these folks with prejudice against super zooms , who're usually seen in many forums . I am actually oppoiste , trying to make these guys in Photo.net forum understand its value and use. But I guess some people never get it , they only care about tripod IQ , obsessed with corner sharpness ................and actually never take any photos. I think if they come to third world like where I am working in and shoot local things with a white lens , they know why I value the 18-200OS and EF70-300IS ... It is great to be inconspicuous , you can not be conspicuous here if you want to shoot the real local culture or real facial expression of people here. And more seriously, it is dangerous to be conspicuous with the 70-200L lens. Any way, every body value different thing and I am not a person to take a teeny bit of IQ advantage the L gives over my light , compact and inconspicuous black EF70-300IS or the Sigma OS. That said , I know the white lenses are better in term of pure IQ , but so? I think I do not like to lose the mobility and convenience for the small margin of the IQ difference. But I have had this OS for about 5 weeks and printed out many A4 size and I think I can not honestly say that the OS is sharper or better at the wide end than the 17-85IS at the wide end of it. If any one read MR. Castleman's review on this lens , he or she must know that the lens is sharper wide open than when it stopped down, and it is a sharp lens from 24-85, also all the problems with the 17-85Is are very easily corrected in PP as Bob Atokins says. My point is while the OS is a great lens , no doubt about it, why have to bash and say nasty about the EF-S17-85IS and EF70-300IS combo? I saw too many morons trashing about the combo, and recommending the Sigma over the combo even to whom 've already got the EF-S17-85IS. When some one already has it , why does he need to replace it with the OS , which is not much better lens at its best , why dont you just suggest a poor guy to add an EF 70-300IS , instead? If he has nothing , then I understand and agree to recommend the OS over the combo. I am now on my third copy of the OS , since my previous 2 got a AF/MF problem (after using the lens in MF mode for a while , the lens does not allow you to use it in AF mode until you turn your camera off for a while , it is famous in Japan). I know many guys had the same issue as mine. I hope this time , it will work out well , other wise , I will get the Oly E510IS with Panasonic 14-150.

lightrules		07-Jul-2007 15:37
"Guest" (that is, "derekl" of POTN), IMO the 18-200 OS is very comparable to the 17-85 IS in their overlapping focal range. I can tell immediately when looking at various crops, even if not compared to directly. To say they are "comparable" is correct IMO. Is the 18-200 OS better than the 1785+70300 combo? That depends. The 70-300 IS is a bit better optically than the 18-200 OS. But, the Sigma offers a nice, simpler walkaround option for many people. So they are a "different package". As for its build and build-feel, it's very impressive. I'll leave it at that. It certainly has a more robust feel to it than the Tamron 1750. And regarding the Tokina 1650, it STILL isn't available here in the US as of right now (7/7/07); very disappointing that they announce it over a year ago and it still is not released here in the states (although it is available in Asia). I believe it will be a SOLID APS-C standard zoom, and if it weren't for an excellent price on the 1755IS I got, I would probably have gotten the Tokie. But regardless, I look forward to its release here in the states and giving it a run.

Guest		07-Jul-2007 11:22
I understand you are so excited about the SigmaOS as I was , but in reality soon , you willbe hearing loud wake up calls , it is a good lens , but do not exaggerate it , it is not better or even not comparable to the EF-S17-85IS in term of image quality ...... And the EF70-300IS is a good lens , Klaus of the photozone.de said it as a hidden L, and do you seriously think the Sigma is better than the combo EF-S17-85 and the EF70-300IS? Also , the build of the Sigma is nothing to write home about , I understand that you are excited about it even as much as to deny having said you 'd review the Tokina instead ,and now , you can only see pros of the Sigma . But do not exaggerate it , the build of the Sigma is not as good as that of the Tamron 17-50, it is just heavier and it is all up to your personal taste . So I think you should not comment on their build too much , since all of us have different value and opinion on build quality of lenses.

lightrules		01-Jul-2007 05:21
The Canon 70-200 f4 is a GREAT lens. You'll really appreciate the high IQ that lens delivers. Enjoy.

James		01-Jul-2007 05:05
Thanks! I really appreciate your response and all of your reviews. I guess optics wins for me, so at my budget i'm still leaning towards a 7-2 f4.

lightrules		01-Jul-2007 00:48
James, keep an eye out at the 18-200 OS link here at my site. I'll be posting comparisons shortly (not a whole lot though). It really isn't "meaningful" to compare the 18-200OS and the 70-200f4 (IS or non-IS) as they are totally different lenses and the superzoom just can't compete with the L. But of course you get the 18-200OS for its convenience and versatility, not so much for pure IQ reasons. I do have some preliminary comparisons between the 18-200OS and 70-200f4IS (not yet posted), but suffice it to say that the L is clearly better, no doubt (and no surprise either). The 17-55IS is also much better than the Sigma. A fairer comparison for the new OS lens is something like the Tamron superzooms or even the Canon 17-85IS. Those are the more direct competitors to the Sigma, though I would take the Sigma over any of them, all things considered. Anyway, stay tuned and check back soon.

James		30-Jun-2007 19:52
Thanks for all your work, Lightrules! Your reviews helped me decide on the sigma 10-20, which I love and use all the time. I have a few questions. I'm looking for something in the 70-200 range but I can't afford the 70-200 F4 IS. Could you compare (or post some comparison shots) for the 18-200 OS versus the canon 70-200 F4? What about the 18-200 OS versus the 70-300 IS? Any thoughts? The build quality on the 70-300 IS didn't impress me much...at the moment I'm leaning towards the 70-200 F4 but might need the OS. I don't really need a travel lens tho, my 28-105 is doing fine for now.

lightrules		19-Jun-2007 17:22
Hi Richard, the 400D/XTi is a fine camera body. You will enjoy it. As for the Canon equivalent to the Nikon 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 VR (which runs about $500), the closest thing in Canon-land is the Canon 24-105mm f4 IS, which costs quite a bit more than the Nikon at about $1000, but is a constant f4 and an "L" lens, which means it is Canon's top of the line series. Sigma is releasing their new 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 OS lens shortly, and it will run about $550 and has Sigma's proprietory optical stabilization technology, which is quite good too. And you can also consider Canon's 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS lens which runs about $500. Hope this helps, and best wishes.

Richard Gatnik		18-Jun-2007 21:58
Considering Canon EOS400D and recently used a D80 with Nikkor 24-120mm with anti reverberation lens. Love Canon cameras and software, what is an equivalent lens for Canon?

lightrules		04-Jun-2007 14:02
Mike, yes I still recommend it. It's built well and functions well, and all at a much more reasonable price.

Mike Dawson		04-Jun-2007 13:07
Jojo, do you still like the Third Party tripod collar you picked up for your 70-200 f/4 L IS? Roxsen still an OK seller in your book?

lightrules		01-Jun-2007 14:40
John, I wouldn't say the 2470L necessarily has better IQ than the 1750. I'd say they have similar optics overall but the Canon has much faster and quieter AF, along with much better build, weathersealing, FF-compatibility, etc. But IMO the Tamron is the better bet for APS-C "walkaround" use. So it's not so much optics but "other" factors that should be determinative.

John		01-Jun-2007 06:45
Hi, would you say the IQ on a Canon 24-70mm 2.8L is better than a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8?

lightrules		01-Jun-2007 04:23
Hi there. You say that the first shots were sharp and now they don't seem to be. Normally lenses don't "fall-off" like that in IQ, so I would make sure it's not user error here. I would just go out and shoot hundreds of frames at f2.8 and f4 and see how the IQ is. You should be able to see consistently good IQ from this lens.

keltab		31-May-2007 21:46
Hello Again! I appreciated the advice you gave me a few months ago. Now I have another question... I have a 70-200 2.8L IS USM and I am concerned it is "soft". The first few sets of shots I took seemed very sharp, but now they IQ seems lower. Do you ahve a test method to check this? Thanks in advance for your help, and I really enjoy and appreciate the info on your site. Makes things MUCH easier for us Newbies!

lightrules		30-May-2007 00:43
Okay guys, thanks for the head's-up. I'll give it a try and see how I like it, but your comments are noted.

chrisp		30-May-2007 00:37
i can just repeat, that a tn panel cannot be used for serious photoediting. the viewing angles are way too small and there is nothing more annoying than a change in color when you move your head a little bit in front of the screen...

lightrules		28-May-2007 21:56
The 226BW gets some of the best reviews of all the 22" LCDs. I'll give it a try and see how it fares. Thanks.

thw		28-May-2007 16:11
I will like to discourage you from getting the Samsung 226BW LCD. From this site: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/, you'll find it has a TN-film LCD. Such LCDs are really not suitable for photographers, it's more for gamers. You'll want IPS/PVA/MVA LCD panels. Take a look at Dell.

lightrules		17-May-2007 18:14
Hi Eddy, I'd recommend the 1850 for your 1.6x body. It's just a more "normal" walkaround focal range for your small-sensor body. While the 2470 is a great lens, and works with FF, I recommend you look at the new 1850 Macro or the Tamron 1750. Best wishes and enjoy the light.

eddy		17-May-2007 17:45
Hi! I came across this site and noticed you are very familiar with sigma's!! I am currently thinking of getting one of 2 sigma lenses to replace my 18~55 kit lens. one is the sigma 18-50/2.8 macro (new version) and the other is the sigma 24-70/2.8. after taking a look at my shooting habits, i use the 18~24mm as frequently as the 50~55mm focal length, and at this point, im sort of at a loss. i was wondering about the lens quality itself and which one you think is a better lens (unless you feel they are both the same). im hoping perhaps this distinction will better help me decide which way i really want to go. or if i am asking myself the wrong question, then maybe you can help me ask the right one!!! in any case, thanks in advance for the help!

Tim		14-May-2007 12:04
Thanks mate!

lightrules		10-May-2007 15:37
Hi Tim, I don't plan for a test between the 10-20 and 10-17, but you can see this http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/76808131/original

Tim		10-May-2007 13:51
Hey there! Is there (in hope) a chance that you'll do a test between the Sig 10-20mm and the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye? Theres a few extreme sports shooters (inc myself) looking for comparisons on FOV, sharpness etc! Cheers boss! Tim

lightrules		08-May-2007 01:35
Greetings. Yes, I have been anticipating the new Tokina 16-50 for a l-o-n-g time! See this thread from July 14 2006 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=191712 . It should be a fantastic lens. I don't think it will "sell more" or be more "popular" than its Tamron or Sigma competitors because of its price, but I do believe its price reflects the quality of the lens one is getting here. The 16mm wide, the unmatched build, the water/oil-proof coatings, the ergonomically nice "focus-clutch" AF/MF mechanism, and its excellent optics are going to put it in a "3rd party L-Class" grade. So IMO, while it won't be as popular as the 1750 or 1850 lenses, it will be a "better" lens. Time will tell just how good the optics are though.

akbarfoto		08-May-2007 01:28
I have seen that you have your eye on that new tokina 16-50 that just came out. This will be great if you could/are going to compare with tamron 17-50. It is going to be one of those 24-70 sigma vs canon. Looking forward for your future test. Thank your for the effort.

lightrules		04-Apr-2007 05:35
I generally do, especially as of late, show results at varying subject distances. Take care and best wishes.

Guest		04-Apr-2007 04:48
Thanks. I hope my newly-ordered Tamron 17-50/2.8 won't have AF problem for landscape photography. What I'm thinking is that do you think it'll be also nice for your future tests to have both 'portrait distance' and 'landscape distance' tests? Just my 2 cents.

lightrules		02-Apr-2007 22:40
Hello. With regards to your question about lenses being designed specifically to perform better at certain subect distances, I do not think they are "designed" that way per se, but they certainly will perform (in practice and function) better depending on subejct distance. That is to say, each lens is going to have not only its "sweet spot" in terms of sharpness and contrast at a given aperture (e.g., f8), but also going to be better at a specific focal length and subject distance. One lens might excel at one distance and another vice versa. I can say this with confidence as that is something I've learned through all my testing and comparisons. You just need to find your lens' "sweet spot" and know its strenghts and weaknesses. Take care.

Guest		02-Apr-2007 19:28
Hi, I have a long-time baffling question. Are some lenses made to have superb resolutions for portrait photos (object within 2-5 meters) and mediocre resolutions for landscape photos (object beyond 30 meters) ? My Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 seems such a lens. On the other side, my Sigma 18-125 takes bad portrait photos but pretty good landscape photos. Just wierd. I wonder if the optics were designed to be distance-sensitive. Thanks

lightrules		21-Mar-2007 19:09
Hi Pablo, I'm hoping to be able to test the Tamron 1750 with the Tokina 1650, but I have been waiting for the latter to become available. So hopefully this comparison will happen shortly. Thanks for the comments.

Pablo Y��ez		21-Mar-2007 18:25
Thanks so much again for your test, they have been invaluable in making some purchasing decisions. I notice that you seem to test Sigma and Canon, any chance you could get your hands on a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 to compare with the equivalent Siggies and Canon lenses? I briefly got my hands on this lens as was very impressed. Thanks

Guest		20-Mar-2007 04:17
Thanks again

lightrules		20-Mar-2007 04:14
With both lenses at f2, the 28 is sharper than the 35. Even at f2.8 the 28 is clearly sharper. They begin to even out around f4-f5.6.

Guest		20-Mar-2007 04:08
Thank you for your insight. As far as sharpness is concerned (especially at larger aperatures), were they fairly similar? or was one clearly ahead of the other?

lightrules		20-Mar-2007 04:06
Greetings. Between the 28 and 35, I prefer the 28. Focal length aside, I like the optics a bit better, and the AF noise is significantly quieter with the 28f1.8 over the 35f2. The 35 is smaller, but it's got a very "buzzy" AF motor. Both good lenses, but I like the 28f1.8 better.

Guest		20-Mar-2007 03:35
As always, i found some very good comparisons on your site. I am interested in both the 28/1.8 USM, and the 35/2 Canon lenses. In your opinion, which was the better of the two and why? Thank you very much for your help in advance.

lightrules		15-Mar-2007 17:16
I would get the Sigma if you highly value or need f2.8, and I would get the Canon if you can get by with f4 speed; the f4 will also be lighter and smaller. That's really all it comes down to.

Guest		15-Mar-2007 16:32
Heya, since you have tested both Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Canon 70-200 f/4, which lens should I get? As both are about the same price and I don't have monies for a Canon 70-200 f/2.8, thanks

lightrules		08-Mar-2007 01:12
Hi Jim, I'm testing all the lenses you mention at the current time. It is just taking me a while to do it right. It might still be 2-3 weeks before I can post my findings. Take care and enjoy the light.

Jim		07-Mar-2007 23:19
I see you are selling your sigma 100-300 f4. Does that mean you won't be testing this along with the canon 100-400 and your new sigma 120-300 f 2.8? I am interested in one of these 3 lenses as both a sports lens as well as telephoto (using a 1.4 x on the 100-300 and a 1.4x or 2x on the 120-300). What's your opinion on this comparison. Thanks...

lightrules		02-Feb-2007 07:19
Fredrik, I did not test the 50-150EX with a 2xTC, though of course I would expect IQ to certainly drop as well as CA performance to go down. My best guess is that it would be similar in performance to the 7-3APODG, but again, that's only a guess. If you end up trying out the 50-150EX with a 2xTC, let me know how it fares. Enjoy the light.

Fredrik		02-Feb-2007 07:14
I noticed your test of the 50-150 Sigma with interest! What is your general take on quality with 2x extenders? How to you think the 50-150 w. 2x at 300mm would compare to a budget 70-300, like the Sigma APO?

lightrules		18-Jan-2007 17:20
Hi, see Q19 at http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/faq

BGarb		18-Jan-2007 09:02
Cant decide between the 70-200mm L f/4 IS and the non IS. I looked all over the internet and could not really find a solid review of the IS lens compared to the non IS. For shooting like sports and moving objects would it be more pracical to just buy the 70-200 L f2.8 instead of the f/4 IS????

Tomasz Wojczyk		05-Jan-2007 06:52
I love your site ; great tool very objective and non biased; keep up great work. Tomasz

lightrules		26-Dec-2006 16:55
Hi, you can't use front filters on the 12-24EX due to its bulbous design. You can use front filters on the 10-20EX, however, but it's an APS-C lens only.

Guest		26-Dec-2006 09:09
would some please tell which system filter other than rear gelatin filter that works with sigma 12-24mm open wide ( that is at 12mm ) ??????? thanks

Guest		22-Dec-2006 14:07
Hi JoJo I hope that Santa brings the lens we all, photo lovers, asked for. Merry Christmas for you and for the guys that use to browse this great site. Pedro Oporto/Portugal

thw		16-Dec-2006 01:26
The Canon 28 f/1.8 and Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 lenses are on my mind right now. Looking forward to your usual detailed report. :)

Guest		29-Nov-2006 21:21
Looking forward to your 30mm 1.4 vs 35L 1.4 test jojo! Mike

Fred Relaix		22-Nov-2006 16:11
Hello Lightrules, I found your site by accident from a forum (despite spending a lot -too much- of time on pbase!). You have done a great job, and while I agree with most of your comments, I have to say that I am using extensively the 17-55 f2.8 IS, it is now my walk-around lense and I am very happy with it (check my site where most pictures were taken with it). I have really no flare problem (with my copy at least), it is very sharp (but does not beat my 50 f1.4), while the real weak points are built quality (compared with the 17-40 f4 L for instance, I have tried both before choosing the EFS 17-55 f2.8 because I do a lot of low light or night pictures) and vigneting wide open. Before returning your copy you should have compared to the 17-40 or the 17-85 (even to the Tamron or Sigma similar lenses), it would have been useful. Anyway, keep up the great work, I have now bookmarked you and will be back often! Best regards, Fred (GM Parisian V as well of course!)

lightrules		16-Nov-2006 05:48
Welcome to this site. I used and tested extensively the 1755IS for almost two weeks before returning it. The main reasons for letting it go were price-build ratio and flare performance. In every other way, the lens is outstanding. I still believe it is "the" APS-C walkaround lens to have. But it does cost quite a bit for something that isn't "L" build. But optically (apart from flare performance) it is superlative. Regarding the Tokina 16-50 f2.8, I am anticipating its optics to be at a VERY HIGH level, its build to be tremendous (unquestioned), having 16mm to be attractive for my shooting, and all at a very appropriate price-point. And while I am disappointed that Tokina is releasing it so late, I intend to wait for it. Simply put, it's a very attractive walkaround IMO, easily more so than the Sigma 1850 and Tamron 1750 variants. If you can swing the Canon 1755, it's quite a lens; but just be aware of my comments on it. Best wishes.

fudgewang		16-Nov-2006 05:09
You mentioned today that you are anticipating the Tokina 16-50. I am wondering do you still own your 17-55 IS? What is your main reason that you think you will like the Tokina more as a walk-around over the 17-55 IS? Is it just price, weight, and size? I am wondering if I should get the 17-55IS now or wait for the Tokina. Thank you in advance for your comments.

lightrules		20-Oct-2006 14:19
pirx, I highly doubt it. I've used/tested the previous 1850EX quite a bit and can attest to its good performance, and I don't expect the new "Macro" version to be a slouch. They will undoubtedly be very similar in overall performance.

pirxthepilot		20-Oct-2006 05:34
hi jojo, any chance you'll be testing the new Sigma 18-50mm EX DC MACRO? :)

dom		01-Oct-2006 12:38
just hearsay, but this fellow reckons the Tokie 16-50 is delayed a further 6 months http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20269261

saskia		30-Sep-2006 09:19
Your tests are a great help. Many thanks!!!

lightrules		22-Sep-2006 16:13
AC, thanks for the comments. Regarding the 300f4IS, this was the lens I truly wanted in my bag; in fact, I thought it would even replace my 1-4IS. But I have now used 3 brand new copies, and they each performed the same (i.e., excellent without TC, okay with TC). I never used a copy of the 300f4+1.4x that was better than my 1-4IS. I thought I would, at least initially. I still recommend and like very much the 300f4IS, but I'll be hanging onto my 1-4IS because it's simply remarkable and so versatile and convenient. The new 7-2f4IS, however, looks very promising and interesting. Enjoy the light and your excellent prime.

angrycorgi		22-Sep-2006 16:09
After looking at the results for the "Fifteen-Pound Show-Down", I have conluded two things: (1) Your 100-400L IS is a superb example! I purchased one fairly recently and spent a week in Brasil shooting birds up in Teresopolis. ! was thoroughly disgusted with the softness my copy demonstrated at 400mm (wide open and @ f/8). I was forced to return it and get a refund. Given my experience and the sample tested at photozone, you should count yourself very fortunate to have such a gem in the wake of the many soft copies that Canon has been peddling!! (2) Your 300 4L IS is not performing very well!! I purchased a refurbished 300 4L IS ($900) two weeks after returning the 100-400, and I must say it is insanely sharp! It resolves very fine detail and actually is an excellent macro lens with 1-1/2 inches of tubes. The samples from your copy appears to either be very soft or experiencing IS interference/blur. I would think you would test it on a tripod with IS off (this lens has a rare form of 2nd-gen IS that can pan-compensate vertically OR horizontally, but like all 2nd-gen IS systems it can't tell that it is on a tripod) to eleminate any user error. I had similar samples to what you posted before I learned how to use the lens and now I get 95+% razor-sharp shots. I noticed a few shots actually came out crisply, so its hard to say what is occurring with your copy. You might want to get it serviced if you are going to retain it! It should be matching/bairly-besting the 100-300 EX if you have a good copy! Also, there appears to be more CA in your 1.4x II shots with this lens (that is expected on the bare 100-400 and the 100-300 + TC combo) I get a touch of CA with my 1.4 II on the borders with white/black high contrast subjects, but barely a hint near the center. All-in-all your tests are well presented. I would like to find a 100-400 copy like yours, but have fallen so much in love with my 300 f4L and 135 f2L, that I might be wasting money to snag the 100-400! The only advantage at the long end over my 300+1.4 that I can see is a mild increase in focus speed. I am getting more convinced with tests of the 70-400 4L that I should fill the mid tele-range with the new IS variant soon to appear. Thanks again for sharing all of your results with the rest of planet Earth!, -AC-

David		18-Sep-2006 03:23
It's showing as "In Stock" at B&H now. I think I'll wait for some reviews, but I'm very interested in it.

lightrules		14-Sep-2006 18:15
Unfortunately, I don't plan a test on the new 50-150 DC lens any time soon. From the looks of it, and from preliminary reports, it seems like a fine EX addition.

Guest		14-Sep-2006 17:38
When can we expect a review of the newest Siggie 50-150?

lightrules		31-Aug-2006 14:43
Greetings giardinelli, the name change was mostly just a preference, although there were some other reasons/benefits for it. As for my presence at DPR, my screenname there is "lightrules" also but I just don't care for DPR all that much these days. Of all the online forums, the one I am at most, if at all, is POTN. Take care and enjoy the light.

giardinelli		31-Aug-2006 08:04
Lightrules, Your analyses are excellent and helpful. I'm wondering why you changed your name from Fstopjojo and why you are rarely at DPreview?

Jo�o P. Mestre		29-Aug-2006 16:47
Ok, thanks, looking forward to it! By the way, my "next to buy lens" list also has de 1020EX. I just can't justify myself to buy the Canon 1022 for �200 (aprox. US$250) more...

lightrules		29-Aug-2006 15:00
Hello Joao, very good lenses you've purchased; enjoy them. As for the 1-3EX, yes I will be testing it out soon against my 1-4IS and a few other lenses too. Check back later in the week as I hope to have results then. Take care.

Jo�o P. Mestre		29-Aug-2006 10:23
Great site LightRules! I've brought my 17-85IS and Sigma 150/2.8EX with a "little help" from your and photozone tests! GOOD WORK! I've seen that you're owner of a Sigma 100-300/4 EX. Will you test it against your 100-400L? I can't decide between the f/4 aperture of the Sigma (ranked as best zoom tested on photozone) and the IS on the Canon L (love it on my 1785), so any help would be great!

Fredrik Karlsson		18-Aug-2006 07:34
I'm also very interested in the 50-150. It would be interestning to compare performance with 1.4x and 2.0x extender, to see how it compares to 70-200/4 and 70-300 lenses.

Charlie A. Sindiong		12-Aug-2006 16:50
Hi! Looking forward to see your review on the new and interesting Sigma 50-150 as well ;-)

Mickey		08-Aug-2006 06:04
Great site jojo! Looking forward to a test of the new Sigma 70-200 macro :) In response to malonlave, I used the 17-85 for almost a year, before upgrading to the 17-55 a month ago, for the 2.8 aperture. The 17-85 was a great lens, though it needed to be stopped down a bit to get maximum sharpness. The 17-55, on the other hand, is sharp wide open! I only have to get the hang of the smaller DOF on the thing... I've had quite a few pics where only one eye was in focus :)

lightrules		06-Aug-2006 21:33
The 1755IS is the best walkaround zoom lens for your camera body currently available. If you can afford it, get it. Otherwise, there are other excellent options, including the fine 1785IS and Sigma 1770DC. Personally I like f2.8 constant lenses but that might differ for you. All in all, you're looking at very good lenses and they will all deliver fine images...it's the photographer that will make or break most captures. Best wishes to you.

malonlave		06-Aug-2006 17:11
Hi lightrules, i just need a little help. I have a canon 350D with the kit lens 18-55, and am now ready to get a better quality + IQ, and i am completly stuck on choosing i was thinking canon 17-85, sigma 17-70, and the new canon 17-55 but i think the 17-55 will tower the 350D a little to big, i already have the canon 70-300 IS NEW and am very pleased with that, i was considering the 17-85 but everytime i go to a forum all i hear is 17-85 this 17-85 that, but i've seen wonderfull pictures taken with the 17-85. So if you can let me know which way to go to get a nice lens to match my 70-300IS i woul really appriciate it, and on price range it doesn't matter but i do think the 17-55IS is over priced. Thank You.

lightrules		18-Jul-2006 03:04
Probably not the 24-105, as nice a lens as it is. IMO it's a very good lens with good optics, great build, IS, excellent focal range, and certainly a formidable alternative to the 24-70L. Don't hesitate to buy it if it has the specs you want.

leonki		18-Jul-2006 01:15
Hi Lightrules.. Are you ever planning on doing a test review of the 24-105 f4L lens? I was wondering how it stacks up against the other big guns from Canon and 3rd party lens companies.

lightrules		07-Jul-2006 15:00
Ricky, it all depends on what you need and shoot. Those lenses are ALL very good. I can't really tell you which way to go on this one. Only you can decide what you need. You're deliberating on some fine glass, and you are thinking of getting rid of some fine glass, so you're in a no-lose situation. One suggestion is to consider the new Sigma 70-200 "Macro" (1:3.5) instead of the Canon 70-200 (non-IS). Best wishes on your choices. Those are all excellent lenses.

Ricky Lee		07-Jul-2006 13:19
Hi Jo Jo, I have a question to ask. I have now the following: 70-200 f4L 85 1.8 100 2.8 USM Macro 200 2.8 L II Althrough they are all great lens I'm thinking would it be better for me to sell the 70-200 f4L, 100 2.8 usm macro and the 200L and get the 70-200mm 2.8 non-is and the Sigma 150 and keeping the 85mm.

lightrules		30-Jun-2006 14:28
AF speed between the 150EX and 70300APO DG is fairly close, although the EX lens has HSM and FTM, so it is silent and smooth. Macro lenses don't tend to AF fast, but this 150EX is one of the faster ones in the category. It also has a focus-limiter switch which is handy. It's a very highly recommended lens.

Robin Bilgil		30-Jun-2006 12:56
Great tests! I had a question about the focus speed of the Sigma 150mm EX - How would it compare to the speed of the Sigma 70-300?

Ricky Lee		29-Jun-2006 14:31
I finally purchased the Canon 100mm Macro together with a Sigma 30mm 1.4 from a guy at the FM Forum for $710 including paypal and shipping to UK which is a great deal! I'm looking forward to play with these lens. And will give you an update. ^_^ Ricky

David Chin		20-Jun-2006 15:39
Darn good job! Linked up at http://www.canonmount.com/mega-lens-test-site-for-the-ef-mount

lightrules		14-Jun-2006 14:16
Don't worry about re-sale value; get the lens you want. With these options you've listed, I'd say ge the Canon if you can afford it. The ring USM with non-extending focus barrel is a very nice perk. They're all fantastic optically. But I'll throw in another option: Sigma 150EX.

Ricky Lee		14-Jun-2006 10:45
Hiya, I'm in the process of getting a macro lens and I am really stuck on which to decide (IQ, Focus, Bokeh, Value and Re-sell value) Canon EF-s 60mm Canon 100mm Sigma 50mm Sigma 105mm Tamron 90mm Budget - Sigma 50mm wins. Quality and Re-sell value - Canon 100m wins I like the working distance of Sigma 105, Tamron 90 and the Canon 100! I see Macro lens test is one missing from your collection of tests. Would you be doing a test on Macros soon? Also how about extension tubes - are they any good? Ricky - (A fan of your work)

lightrules		12-Jun-2006 02:41
My wife uses the Canon S400 Elph; it's pretty old, but it does the job quite well. When we go to Disneyland here in So-Cal (annual pass holders), we only take the P&S. It works just fine.

Wagamama		12-Jun-2006 01:45
Thanks for the tests and reviews! This is partially why I have bothe the Canon 17-55 and the Sigma 10-20 (and formerly the 17-85). I was just wondering... what point and shoot digital camera (if any) do you use? Thanks.

lightrules		08-Jun-2006 03:55
Go to eBay and search "20D Wireless" and you will find a few sellers of the wireless remote. It's about $100-$105 shipped last time I checked. Great accessory to have.

Guest		08-Jun-2006 01:20
Lightrules, back when you were fstopjojo, you had a section on the gear that you use, not just lenses. In there you had a wireless remote trigger. Could you tell me which one that was, and perhaps where I could get it?

lightrules		06-Jun-2006 17:14
Bob, as I stated in my earlier response, the lens can't go faster than f4 at 17mm. Hence, in Av mode, if you're at 17mm f4, and you set EC to -2, it will adjust your shutter speed accordingly by 2 stops (faster). So for example, if at 17mm f4, your shutter speed is 1/100, if you set EC to -2, it will be 17mm f4 and 1/400. Hope this helps more.

AThomas772		06-Jun-2006 16:49
One more follow on question regarding my Exposure Compensation yesterday. Let's say I set my camera to AV Mode at 4.0 at17mm. Now if I set my Exposure Compensation to -2, what will my F stop be? Is it still 4.0 or does the camera compensate for this and set it to a faster F stop? If the camera does not adjust to a faster F stop, then what does the EC do in the above example. Thanks again in Advance. Bob

AThomas772		06-Jun-2006 03:51
Thanks for your excellent input. You comments are very helpful.

lightrules		06-Jun-2006 03:23
Bob, the 1785IS is an f4-f5.6 lens, meaning at 17mm its max aperture is f4 and at 85mm its max aperture is f5.6. If you use Av (I use that mostly, and I would say the majority of shooters do as well), and if you set your lens to f4, you'll only be at f4 from around 17mm-24mm, or thereabouts (I don't know the exact mm when the lens "slows down"). Try this: set your 20D to ISO 200, Av mode, lens at 17mm, f4 aperture. Now, turn your focal length to 30mm or so, and notice you cannot get to f4 anymore; now set your lens to 85mm, and now you find that the fastest aperture you can have is f5.6. So your lens, from 17-85mm, has a max aperture in the range of f4-f5.6 from its wide end to tele end. Now as for EC, it's a handy function in that once you view your histogram (learn to do this early on; it's a good habit and extremely useful), you can tell if you need to use some EC, whether + or -. But it does make a difference when in Av mode because while your aperture will remain the same, the camera will adjust your shutter speed to compensate for the change in exposure. I'd recommend you pick up a good exposure book, something like Bryan Peterson's stuff; or, simply Google this topic and read about the interplay between ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Hope this helps a little.

AThomas772		06-Jun-2006 02:35
This question is almost embarassing but I don't know the answer. I am an owner of a Canon 20d and have the following question: I have a 17-85mm IS, USM F4.0 lens as well as another Canon lens. My question is, If I have my Canon 20D set at AV and set to F 4.0, does it make any difference if I set my Camera setting "Exposure Compensation" to -1, -2 or - anything since my lens is limited to a F4.0 setting???. Sorry if this is elementary but I don't know the answer. Thank You In Advance, Bob

Guest		05-Jun-2006 06:56
I really enjoy your website. It is helpful and informative. You rock!

lightrules		12-May-2006 15:58
The Canon 30D (like the 10D/20D/XT) are all bodies that have a smaller sensor than a "Full Frame" body (e.g., 5D, 1Ds). Hence, the resulting image produced by whichever lens you use on the 30D will have a "cropped" (NOT "magnified") field-of-view (FOV) equivalent to the focal length x 1.6. So, for example, a 55-200mm lens will actually give you an equivalent FOV of 88-320mm. So on a 30D, no matter which lens you use, take that lens and multiply it by 1.6 and that is the FOV you will have. The lens focal length remains what it is; it's only the resulting FOV "in use" that is different. I recommend you go to some online forums and read up on this more. Enjoy the light and welcome to the wonderful world of photography.

Guest		12-May-2006 04:11
Why do the B&H features on some lenses say stuff like "55-200mm translates to 90-320mm when used with digital cameras"? I'm looking at a Canon 30D & a newbie to dSLRs.

Chris Krueger		01-May-2006 21:26
Yeah, sometimes the alternative is worse... Tamron's 17-35 has a thick focus ring and a thick zoom ring. There's almost nowhere to hold it while it's AFing. Personally, I'd rather have a thinner focus ring... even as small as the 28-135 or 35/2, but the dual focus mechanism is not a killer for me, just an irritation. Especially when mounting/unmounting my 20/1.8.

lightrules		01-May-2006 16:56
To some the 2-step mechanism is irritating and to others it's a small price to pay for such a lens. In practice it takes 1 second to switch from AF to MF (and back) and I never found it limiting or a problem. I personally like that there is no externally rotating focus ring and that while in AF you can freely turn it. It all depends on how one looks at it.

Chris Krueger		01-May-2006 15:25
Another difference between the 24-60/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 is that the 24-70/2.8 has Sigma's irritating Dual Focus system, where you have to push/pull focus ring AND switch the AF switch to toggle between AF and MF. The 24-60 does not.

lightrules		29-Apr-2006 22:01
Ringo, the Sigma 2470EX is Sigma's most popular "EX" standard zoom, but IMO all the EX standard zooms (1850/2460/2470/2870) are very good. Each has its own pros and cons, like every lens, but they're great lenses at very reasonable prices. But I've always believed the 2470EX to be the closest 3rd party lens to the Canon 2470L. The 2460 is smaller than the 2470 and some folks prefer that over the extra 10mm at the long end. I think that should be your main consideration. I'm used to carrying my 70200IS and 100400IS (even walking around) so when people complain about the 2470L or 2470EX being too "big and heavy" I usually sigh. But each person is different, and if the weight/size of the 2470s are too big, then it isn't any good for that person. So you'll need to decide the weight v. 10mm issue; optically they're close. As for the mis-focusing with the external flash, that is a copy-to-copy issue with Sigma's standard zooms, and you should contact Sigma about that if you're having a lot of problems with it. Best wishes to you.

Ringo Santiago		29-Apr-2006 20:53
Jojo, forgot 1 more question: in my limited test, my 24-60 seems to suffer from the missed focus issue when using 420EX flash with auto-assist beam. Is this a flaw or characteristic of the sigma 24-60/70? or is it with individual lenses? thanks. Ringo

Ringo Santiago		29-Apr-2006 20:49
Nice tests and wow, lots of lenses. Question: I just got a Sigma 24-60 for my Rebel XT and it seems like a really good lens and my copy is pretty sharp at f2.8. I am coming from the 28-135 IS and, although I generally like it, I was looking for something faster, and slightly wider as a walk-around. How different is the 24-60 vs. the 24-70? the size steered me from the 24-70, but as I look at your photos, it's very similar in size to the 28-135. Will I notice much difference in handling/image quality between the 2 sigmas? I like the size of the 24-60, but i wish it had just a little more zoom. 10mm doesn't seem like much, but it might be that little bit that i want. opinions/advice? Thanks. Ringo

lightrules		28-Apr-2006 16:26
Ed, thanks for the kind words. While your comment probably isn't true (in my mind), I do appreciate the note. Stop by anytime and feel free to leave questions and comments anywhere at my site. Best wishes and enjoy the light. Jojo

Guest		27-Apr-2006 15:16
You are the No.1 site for lens info and comparisons. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication Cheers, ED

Guest		21-Apr-2006 10:35
The Yosemite National Park is a lovely place (only saw in photos) so I'm waiting for your photos JoJo. Have a nice trip and may the light be as you want it to be. Kind regards Pedro / Portugal

Chris Krueger		18-Apr-2006 18:00
Darn, I was hoping you would have bought a 5D instead of a lens. Your tests are awesome, but since I got a 5D they leave out the most important detail for me: edge performance. But hey, you have to test what you shoot, right? I imagine the idea of retesting every lens you own might be a bit tedious, too. :)

lightrules		17-Apr-2006 04:07
Yes, I've used the Sigma 28EX (about 1 year ago). It's similar to its siblings: the 20EX and 24EX, both in build and optics. It's a good lens optically, assuming a properly focusing one. Mine had problems with my 20D body focusing at or near wide open apertures, but it was sharp where it did get the focus correctly. But IMO it really doesn't compare to the new 30EX vis-a-vis optics (both resolution and contrast), size, handling, HSM/FTM, etc. The 30EX is truly a league up. There is no doubt that the 28EX is a great value, but the 30EX is really another level. If you can handle them yourself, I think you would realize this instantly. Best wishes and enjoy the light.

Jack		17-Apr-2006 02:11
Did you own one copy of Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX before? If so, how would you compare it to Sigma 30mm f1.4? I don't know which one to choose from. They just look very similar to me!

lightrules		15-Apr-2006 16:22
I have not heard of any "significant" issues with regards to focusing on any camera body for the 1770DC. Certainly some copies may have problems on a given body, but I think for the most part people seem very pleased with their lens.

Francesco		15-Apr-2006 14:47
I've read that the sigma 17-70 could have some focusing problem with canon 350D? Do you knows something about this? Thanks

lightrules		09-Apr-2006 20:12
The 1755IS is going to be one heck of a lens; I have no doubts about that. But in my "hint" above, I state that the lens I am getting next is sharp from "center to edge", and by that I mean practically (almost) as sharp at the borders as in the center. I don't think the 1755IS will be "that" good. Good try though.

Daniel G		08-Apr-2006 08:11
17-55? You've been talking about it quite a bit on POTN ;)

lightrules		07-Apr-2006 03:27
The 300 f2.8 L? I don't think so. But good effort, Jan. You are to be commended on this choice though as it is truly one of the best (if not THE best) lenses you can mount on a Canon body.

JkO		06-Apr-2006 07:13
Are you planning to get 300 2.8 L IS ?

lightrules		05-Apr-2006 15:14
Good effort, folks. You guys are on the right track! Stay tuned...

adaytoremember		05-Apr-2006 08:38
My guess would be a new Prime instead of the new 17-55 f2.8 IS - as no one know how sharp it is yet and also no-one know if performance is good with the whole range! So my bet would be a Prime! Mr. Ma, you're not thinking about the new 85 L are you? I know you love the 85 1.8 but the new 85L is going to be 6 times more expensive than the very good 85 1.8! Whatever you get we would be waiting eagerly for your new tests! PS. Seen last post, I have now added the 85mm 1.8 and the Sigma EX 24-70mm 2.8 for low light! I'm still hunting for a good deal on the 30mm Siggie! No matter what, have fun with your new lens! Ricky

Mike		05-Apr-2006 03:26
Hi Jojo, As for the new lens, I thought you were thinking about getting the 17-55 2.8IS. I also second the possibility of you getting a macro lens. Whatever you get, enjoy, and let us know how it goes. Mike

Guest		04-Apr-2006 23:55
You're getting a Sigma 180mm macro or the 300mm f2.8 IS. That's my guess, given your current collection. (Ok 2 guesses)

dom		03-Apr-2006 23:25
what a great gallery... very interesting >> you should be charging for this service!

lightrules		01-Apr-2006 17:16
About the only thing going for the 170-500 over the Bigma is the weight savings. Otherwise, the Bigma is unbeatable. Optically it's impressive, gives you amazing range, build quality is top-notch, has HSM and FTM (which the 170-500 does not), and all at a great price for a lens of this caliber. I would say either get the Bigma or the Canon 100-400IS.

Gary		01-Apr-2006 17:03
Just one more question, please. Sorry to be such a pest, but I've looked at the Sigma web site and still have no idea concerning the practical differences between the Sigma 50-500 and the 170-500. Would the latter be better optically because they are trying to cover less focal length, per chance?

lightrules		01-Apr-2006 15:08
Yes, the Bigma is the 50-500. You can find out all about these lenses at Sigma's website.

Gary		01-Apr-2006 06:24
Is the "Bigma" the 50-500? What's the difference between it and the 170-500? You can tell, I'm new...

lightrules		01-Apr-2006 00:55
Hi Gary, I've never used the T200-500. However, I've heard mostly very good reports from those who use it, at least optically. I'm not a big fan of Tamron's build-feel quality, but that lens is lighter than the Bigma. I think optically you'd be pleased with the T, but take a serious look at the Bigma too -- there's a reason why it's so popular a lens.

Gary		01-Apr-2006 00:47
Have you looked at the new Tamron 200-500 yet? I was in the market for either a Sigma 50-500 or 179-500 when I saw the new Tamron. I need the reach for a trip to Alaska. Any suggestions?

Francesco		28-Mar-2006 21:46
Thanks a lot!

lightrules		27-Mar-2006 21:47
Francesco, based on the pricing you've given and the lenses you've listed, I would recommend to you the new Sigma 1770DC. It's very good optically and will give you a nice walkaround with great close-up ability. I think you'll really like it. Best wishes.

Francesco		27-Mar-2006 21:39
Hi fstopjojo, i'm going to buy a canon 350D and now i'm looking for a good walkaround len like sigma 18-125 or 17-70 and canon 17-85 and the kit lens 18-55. Keeping in mind the price, image and useful, what do you think? Are these lens an improvement from the kit lens? The price for me are: 70 � for kit lens 18-55, 250 � for 18-125, 300 � for 17-70 and 500 for 17-85. Thanks for your reviews!!!

Jared		26-Mar-2006 23:22
FatBoy- I had a lens from sigma4less.com that was very stiff on the zoom ring. TEST IT on some kinda chart at all apertures. I had it sent back because of poor contrast. Next one didn't have the stiff zoom ring and the picture quality was like night and day. My new one looks better at f2.8 than the old one did at f8, it was that big of a difference. (of course the new one front focused and had to be sent in)

lightrules		21-Mar-2006 19:16
Tim, when I shoot RAW (maybe 20% of the time), I use RSE http://www.pixmantec.com . It's free and an amazing tool.

Tim		21-Mar-2006 19:06
I am curious what raw converter you use. Do you find that different converters respond differently to the cameras, lenses, or both? Thanks....great site ! Tim

lightrules		16-Mar-2006 06:45
Ben, I'd suggest either the Canon 100400IS or Sigma 50-500EX. If you can use a monopod/tripod mostly, the Bigma is a good choice. But if you plan to shoot a good amount handheld, the IS lens is the way to go. Best wishes.

Ben Henry		16-Mar-2006 05:07
I'm just getting into photography...I want to shoot surfing and would like a telephoto lens. It is mostly daytime shooting Which do you think would be the best quality for surfing/sports and general/wildlife? Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L USM Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX HSM w/ 2x teleconverter Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG w/ 1.4 teleconverter Sigma 80-400 f4.5-5.6 EX OS Everything else is probably too expensive. Thanks! Ben

lightrules		14-Mar-2006 17:43
Hello Dimitri, welcome to this site. I think if you're getting an UWA (whether Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20), then the 24-70L is the better choice for you. Both the 17-40L and 24-70L are very high quality lenses, but if you have an UWA, get the 24-70mm range. Best wishes and enjoy the light.

Dimitri Moens		14-Mar-2006 17:25
Truly a remarkable site. Objective user feedback with picture evidence, great! Keep up the good work!! I�ll enjoy your place on the net for many more times to come. Do you have some pics between canon� 17-40 and 24-70. I am very interested in the sharpness and contrast differences between the both. I know the zoom range is a bit off between the two of them but I am considering buying the canon 24-70 and sigma 10-20 (sigma after reading your feedback).

lightrules		14-Mar-2006 15:42
fatboy, the zoom ring tension will loosen with normal use. Not to worry as that is normal. Sontoloyo, the Tokina 1650f2.8 looks very interesting. But I hear that it won't be released until the end of 2006; let's hope it's earlier. Take care all.

Sontoloyo		14-Mar-2006 11:14
Hi fstopjojo, It would be very interesting to see performance comparison among Canon EFs 17-55mm vs Sigma 18-50mm EX DC vs Tamron SP AF17-50MM XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] vs Tokina AT-X 16-50mm DX, which all are f/2.8. Tamron's & Tokina's maybe are not available on street yet, but I'll patient to wait :)

fatboy		14-Mar-2006 09:57
Hi Mr. fStopJojo, thanks have your advices yesterday bought 24-70 ex. I am really satisfied!! I have tried you in poor brightness conditions and must say that well.(in condition behaves indeed about very poor light the AF is not precise ). The only note is that the ring of the zoom is very hard, effort is done to turn it; according to you is it a normal thing? Thanks

Guest		13-Mar-2006 15:52
Thanks Fstopjojo.. I guess I'll take this combination or the Canon 300/4L IS with a 1,4x tc or a 400/5.6L. This combination (70-300+1,4x tc) is lighter, so I'm not sure which I'll buy...

lightrules		13-Mar-2006 14:35
Hi Daniel, the cheaper Tamron "F" 1.4xTC works fine on the 70300IS. AF doesn't really slow down all that much, but yes the combination will hunt unless you have decent light and a contrasty subject. It tends to do a rapid, back and forth "jitter" often with the TC. So it will eventually lock focus, but sometimes it's a drag. AF speed is slightly quicker than the Sigma 70300 APO.

Daniel		13-Mar-2006 08:05
Hello, I'd like to know what you think of the AutoFocus speed of the Canon 70-300 with a 1,4x cheapy Tamron extender. For about 300 euros more I can buy a Sigma 80-400 but it is too heavy for me. Is it still faster than the Sigma 70-300mm APO II? (I own that lens atm..) Does it hunt a lot? Thanks in advance.

lightrules		12-Mar-2006 05:19
Hi Morgan, I'll try to answer your Qs but also be brief. First, I am of the opinion that Sigma doesn't plan to come out with an HSM 2470EX anytime soon, so the 2470EX is going to be the closest you'll get to the 2470L. Optically their similar, but of course the L gives you USM and FTM. Second, I haven't seen any tests on the new Macro 70200EX, but IMO the 70200EX is such a good lens that either of these will do you well. If you can wait for the Macro version, and assuming it'll be similarly priced, I would get that since it's an extra "perk" to have the closer MFD and reproduction ratio. But the current DG 70200EX is a ringer of a lens. Third, the issue of future compatibility is something that all 3rd party, reverse engineering companies have to address. I don't think it concerns most folks but it's definitely something to be aware of. Sigma is a good company though that strives to do what they can do keep their customers happy. Hope this helps a bit.

Morgan		12-Mar-2006 04:33
Sorry to double post happened when i refreshed the page oops. Another quetion now though if I was to buy the 3 sigma lenses stated below for use on a canon 30D (APS-C sensor) now with a view to using them on a canon FF sensor body in the future (2 - 3 years) what are the chances of being able to use them on say a 5D equivelant body eg. 6D or whatever they call it then. Will Canon build their new cameras so these lenses won't be able to be attached? Thanks, Morgan

Morgan		12-Mar-2006 01:54
Hi fStopJojo, I was going to buy Canon L glass for my new 30D but after considering third party lenses such as Sigma I cannot justify spending that much more money on Canon L Lenses. You're information and tests have been invaluable to me. You are obviosly very knowlegable on Sigma lenses, do you know if they will be releasing a 24 - 70 f/2.8 EX MACRO DG with HSM? And if so when? I plan on buying the 10 - 20 f/4 - 5.6 EX HSM and the 70 - 200 f/2.8 EX HSM. One more question what is the difference/s between the Sigma 70 - 200 f/2.8 EX HSM and the new MACRO version, which one is better? Cheers and keep up the good work. Morgan

lightrules		10-Mar-2006 20:08
Depending on what you mean by "better", it's probably best to inquire at some Nikon lens forums online where you can discuss specific lenses and specific issues. But certainly the Sigmas can hold their own. Take care.

smswales_garry		10-Mar-2006 19:56
Hi fstopjojo Thanks for the recommendation, I have a lot to learn over the next few months. Are the Sigma lenses you mentioned better or equivalent to the Nikon lenses, and if so is this based on price or overall performance Garry

lightrules		10-Mar-2006 18:13
Garry, welcome to this site. The Nikon D50 is a great DSLR bargain and seems perfect for what you want to do. For $550 [USD], the body+kit lens is a steal in my book. That said, the kit lens isn't all that great. I believe you're asking a recommendation for 2 lenses that will help you cover work, kids, and travel. I don't know what your budget is, but check out Sigma's website and in particular their new "DC" lenses: http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp . I would highly recommend the 17-70DC for your walkaround lens, and also look at adding a good telephoto lens, something that takes you from 70-200 or 70-300 or thereabouts. Check out Nikon and Sigma lenses in particular. If you're on a budget, it's hard to beat the overall range and value of the Sigma 1770 DC and Sigma 70300 APO DG Macro. Best wishes to you and your enjoyment of photography.

smswales_garry		10-Mar-2006 17:43
Hi I have been reading through your articles regarding lenses and I think I am getting more confused each time I read an article. I am buying a Nikon D50 body and need to decide what lenses to buy to out perform the standard 18-55 that accompanies it (if that is possible) I can see that it is not easy to recommend two lenses, but I am going to ask anyway, my use is for three things work, my children and holiday/scenery. I am moving up from a compact Fuji 602 zoom, fed up with the shutter lag and missing photos of the kids playing, so it is my first time into SLR cameras and all the lenses that go with them Regards Garry

lightrules		09-Mar-2006 18:21
Welcome to this site. There is no comparison between the 1855Kit and Sigma 2870EX. Optics, speed, build, everything is better with the Sigma (except that the kit lens of course gives you a wider FOV). But on a crop body like your 350D, you might want to look into something like the new Sigma 1770DC or Sigma 1850EX also. The Canon 1785IS is also a good bet.

Guest		09-Mar-2006 17:59
Compliments for the really useful tests. Own a Canon 350 d, with the lens 18-55 of the kit. Am to the search of a lens qualitatively superior. You think that the Sigma 28-70 Ex DG can be better than mine 18-55, at level of neatness and good quality of the image?

lightrules		07-Mar-2006 16:51
The 2460 is a good lens that is lighter than the 2470, but I don't think it's a better lens. They cost about the same price too.

kromka		07-Mar-2006 16:16
if you can live without extra 10mm , i think sigma 24-60ex better then 24-70ex macro. http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/PP1004_LensTest.pdf read conclusion . and some $ save

lightrules		04-Mar-2006 17:47
See this recent thread http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=17432213

us_navyls		04-Mar-2006 17:42
Hi fstopjojo, where have you read of the Tokina 16-50 and when is it coming on the market?

lightrules		04-Mar-2006 16:46
I would make your decision based on what focal length you most want. If it were me, it would be between the 1850EX and the 2470EX. Read around my site as there are many comments about these lenses.

Guest		04-Mar-2006 10:35
Dear Mr. Fstopjojo, I am very indecisive on which of these Sigma buying: 18-50 24-60 24-70 could give me some information about the values and faults, and his personal rating? Thanks.

lightrules		03-Mar-2006 04:37
I'm actually having a hard time letting go of the 1785IS. It's such a good range, has 3rd generation IS, ring USM and full-time manual, etc. But I think the f2.8 speed puts the new 1755IS in a class by itself: a wide standard zoom with f2.8 constant and 3rd generation IS, there's nothing like it. I think the additional 30mm of the 1785 is nice, but I also think I'll like the 1755 so much it'll all be worth it. Best wishes on your decision.

thw		03-Mar-2006 02:17
Oh, fstopjojo, you're now tempting me with the idea of selling my 17-85 IS lens for the new 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. Sigh... :) I am only slightly 'worried' about the range as I find myself using the 85 mm end at times when I do not want to change lens.

lightrules		02-Mar-2006 23:49
I looked at the link (my Greek is better than my Hebrew, FWIW). Anyway, I've said it all along and will continue to say it: Sigma's "EX" standard zoom lenses in the 18-50, 24-60, 24-70, and 28-70 are all EXCELLENT lenses. They are all comparable with each one having certain strengths. Again, they are all great lenses at great prices delivering great image quality. Take a shot of them all at 40mm/f4 and print them out to 11x14 and you'll be hard-pressed to see a whole lot of difference. Also, I am excited that Tokina is coming out soon with a new 16-50 f2.8 lens -- it should have excellent build and high quality image reproduction too!

kromka		02-Mar-2006 20:45
sigma 24-70ex macro http://d-spot.co.il/forum/index.php?showtopic=24508&st=0 if you know hebrew you can read this, if you don't look for pictures with coments under it. he sad that 18-50ex is best . 24-60ex second place & 24-70 good but 3'th place betwin sigma "ex". it what mtf chart show ( sharpness).

lightrules		01-Mar-2006 22:23
I think the f5.6/f8 images are fairly representative of the lens, yet I wouldn't say they are "soft". If you did some basic PP to them and print them to say, 8x10 or 11x14, they'd look pretty darn good. All in all, the 1770 left a VERY good impression on me and I'd highly recommend it as an "above average" consumer grade lens with not only good optics but extremely fun and useful versatility given its focal range and 1:2 close up ability. It's definitely one to consider. Best wishes to you.

us_navyls		01-Mar-2006 22:00
Hi Fstopjojo, I hope you don't mind if I ask you an opinion about the shots in this test ( http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ja_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fdc.watch.impress.co.jp%2fcda%2flens%2f2006%2f02%2f03%2f3129.html )... Expecially the ones of trees agaist the sky ( not the one with sun flare of course ) rather than macros. They are taken at f8 or f5.6 ...but they seem to me definitely soft. I would say it may be a bad copy. According to your experience...do you agree or think it is just ok, consistent with your impressions ? Or it is me, I'm making wrong considerations...? Thank you very much

lightrules		01-Mar-2006 16:33
Regarding filters in general, I think the key is that the filter be both glass + MC -- those two are the main things. I've found the S&W and Fotodiox MC filters to be quite good. For example, I have ordered a number of my S&Ws from http://stores.ebay.com/AMERICAN-EAGLE-FILTERS-ACCESSORIES . Best wishes (and excellent choice in the 2470EX).

us_navyls		01-Mar-2006 14:50
Hi ftopjojo, do you think that the comparison between multicoated filters ( high priced famous brand vs. low price ) is also valid for circular polarizers? Because I was thinking about buying the 24-70 EX but the 82mm filters are just too expensive ( I mean the idea of paying so much for a filter that costs so much just because it is bigger - I could almost buy half another lens )...BTW, where do I get this lower price/same quality filters? EBay? What is their name?

Romka		28-Feb-2006 21:48
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3260&navigator=2 if you look at mtf chart 24-60 much sharper wide open (in center ~0.8), when 24-70 (only ~0.7) is 24-60 really sharper wide open then 24-70? may be someone shoot with this two lens.

lightrules		28-Feb-2006 21:30
If we're talking technically and pixel peeping, IMO the 2470 is better than the 2460. On print and with basic PP skills, they're both excellent lenses delivering very good IQ. The 2460 is smaller and has quieter AF. Excellent choices though.

Romka		28-Feb-2006 20:33
this is best site befor you bay new lens bravo Jojo. Is (sigma 24-60ex) same in sharpness when f2.8, like (sigma 24-70ex) ? which minus (sigma24-60ex) has? thanks a lot!

lightrules		28-Feb-2006 20:21
Without the hood, I believe there still is some shadow at the 24mm FL, IIRC. But I'd still highly recommend this lens.

Romka		28-Feb-2006 20:18
sigma 24-70 ex , good lens but if it make shadow from built in flash (canon300d) in 24mm-28mm (without hood) .is it true?, this is critical for me I DONT WANT USE EXTERNAL FLASH

lightrules		28-Feb-2006 16:43
One word: y-a-w-n. They should've have put "OS" in this gem.

Jared Kipe		28-Feb-2006 06:35
Who's excited for the new 70-200mm HSM EX DG Macro ?!?!

lightrules		28-Feb-2006 01:29
The 1770 is smaller, lighter, offers 1:2 mag ratio, has quieter AF, and gives you 17mm wide. In terms of pure optics and build, the 2470 is better and more like a tank. The 2470EX remains probably my overall favorite standard zoom, all things said and done and considered. Every lens choice has its compromises so you need to weigh what's most important to you. Best wishes.

us_navyls		28-Feb-2006 01:17
Hi Fstopjojo, now that you have experienced both sigma 24-70 and 17-70, how would you compare them according to your impressions? I am tempted by the 17-70 wider range but the other is 2.8 constant. Moreover, the 17-70 accordig to Sigma's site MTFs seems equal to the 24-70, even better in the centre of the image....but I was not impressed by some of the shots I've seen...Maybe the guy who did them had a bad copy or maybe that graphs do not always coorespond to the truth on the field... However...your general thoughts? Thank you very much.

lightrules		15-Feb-2006 19:35
Mike, the 1770DC should be arriving within the hour. I'll be testing them today and hopefully post results by tomorrow. Stay tuned.

In2Photos		15-Feb-2006 19:29
Hey Jojo, looking forward to the 17-70 test. Just wanted to say i like the new updates to the site. Mike

lightrules		14-Feb-2006 16:07
Hi there, sorry but I no longer have the 1850EX, so I cannot compare it to the 1770DC. However, I've seen enough images and crops from the 1850EX to be able to see how they compare, at least to my eyes. I can report on that if it helps at all, but I will mainly compare the 1770DC to the Canon 1785IS. I will post the FL to aperture of the 1770 also to see where it "leaves" f2.8 in its focal range. IMO though, the 1850EX will be hard to beat. [Note that the new 1770DC is not an EX lens.]

Tomas		14-Feb-2006 14:48
Hallo, can you compare New Sigma 17-70 with Sigma 18-50 too? Please. I want buy one and i Can�t choose between this two sigmas. Thanks for your work.

mmm123		03-Feb-2006 21:25
fstopjojo: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/53826047 - 300mm http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/53826114 - 300mm/f8 Thanks!

lightrules		03-Feb-2006 20:42
mmm123, it would take me a while to sniff through all my images and find these again and pair them up. Please refer to the 100% tests that I have posted in the "70-xxx" gallery, thanks.

mmm123		03-Feb-2006 20:27
Can you post any full size test photos from Sigma 70-300 APO and Canon 70-300 IS? I want to compare them.

lightrules		03-Feb-2006 17:08
Hi Chris, thanks for visiting and your kind comments. Take care, and let's hope Sigma continues to put out "EX"cellent lenses. Enjoy the light!

lightrules		03-Feb-2006 17:07
Bear, I haven't used the Canon 1.4x but by most accounts/users I've seen, they Canon and Kenko are VERY close, if not equal in the center. I have heard that the Canon has slightly better edge performance but even that is negligible. Take care.

Chris LeCouet		03-Feb-2006 15:10
Congratulations !!! I like very much your tests and your always humble and just(right) comments continuous! Chris for Sigma-romandie (switzerland)

bear		03-Feb-2006 05:36
I found that IQ is better with Kenko 1.4x + Canon 1.4x than Canon 2x on 70-200 IS at F5.6/F8. However IQ of Canon 1.4x is much better than Kenko 1.4x at F4 but narrow down at F5.6/F8. Comment?

lightrules		02-Feb-2006 17:02
Generally speaking, the 2x or 1.4x+1.4x is going to give you very similar results. Some have said AF is faster with the latter set up, but I haven't noticed a big difference. I think IQ remains very good with a 1.4x, but when you go to the 2x, IQ really takes a hit. You'll need to stop down at least 2 stops for best IQ. Take care and enjoy the light.

lightrules		02-Feb-2006 15:45
Hi Robert, I hope to be able to, once it is released. Take care and check back periodically.

Robert		02-Feb-2006 10:20
Hi Do you plan on purchasing/borrowing the new Sigma 17-70 to test it out?

mmm123		29-Jan-2006 21:48
Hi. I have a request. Please read my comment here: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/53826112 Thanks

Guest		28-Jan-2006 12:59
Hello FStopJojo, Could you please have a look at my comment at this page? http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/3z1p ? Thanks in advance!

David		28-Jan-2006 01:08
oh. I read online that its hard to find a good copy, as i have read on dpreview as well. what do you think? Cause i want the sharpest tamron/sigma i can get. What do you think?

lightrules		28-Jan-2006 00:05
David, the Sigma 28-70 and Tamron 28-75 are good choices (albeit the Tamron is more popular). Both are smaller and lighter than the Sigma 24-70, which I am a big fan of. But between those two lenses, I think optically the Tamron is slightly better but the build quality goes to the Sigma. I would say if possible to try them out at a store and see how you like the build and feel of each one. But if I were to just choose one and order online, it would probably be the Tammy. Best wishes to you.

David Le		27-Jan-2006 22:59
Hi there. i'm currently having a sort of delema i guess. I'm debating between a Sigma 28-70 EX DG macro f/2.8, and the Tamron 28-75 SP AF f/2.8. What do you suggest as over-all? (i'm using a nikon). I want sharp pictures, but i also want macro. I usually shoot portraits, nature, and weddings. What do you suggest?

lightrules		20-Jan-2006 05:11
Glad this site is useful to you, Jack. Thanks for visiting and best wishes.

Jack Ha		19-Jan-2006 22:04
OK I must be blind!!! This site is sooo great :D :D 4 "70-xxx" Lenses Tested

Jack Ha		19-Jan-2006 18:54
Fantastic site! Comparison of lenses using test photo's is just the best way. I have searched a lot of reviews and comparions on the web:) Another thing: Does anyone have experience with 70-300 lenses? There are a lot of different tastes for that range and I'm confused what lens is the best bang for the buck and if IS is worth it! I'm using a eos 350d (rebel xt). Tastes here in NL: Sigma 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 APO DG Macro (220 euro), Sigma 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 DG Macro 1:2 (140 euro), Tamron 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD 1:2 Macro (125 euro), Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (540 euro), Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM (200 euro). Prices are an indication. Some say the cheapest Sigma is very good, others say that the APO is well worth the price difference and that it's optically at Canon's IS lens level. I'm so confused :s :)

Guest		19-Jan-2006 18:12
Thanks, I think will go for the 17-40, the 24-70L is too expensive. A friend has the 18-50 f2.8 it's good but often misses focus. I have consider the 17-85 but price too close to the 17-40L lens.

lightrules		19-Jan-2006 18:01
Hi there, for weddings I would recommend a lens with USM or HSM (silent motors). The Sigma 24-70 is excellent optically but makes a buzzy AF noise, which IMO is distracting during certain moments of weddings. I would seriously consider the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 though as well, even though it lacks HSM, it is fairly quiet. Otherwise, consider the Canon 17-40L, 24-70L, or the new 24-105L with IS. Best wishes.

Guest		19-Jan-2006 14:50
I have a (x 1.6 fov) 20D, like PJ and do a bit wedding shots, which lenses should I buy? Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or Canon 17-40 f4 ?

lightrules		19-Jan-2006 08:34
Not interested in that new lens for several reasons. I'll keep the 1785IS for a while I think. Thanks anyways.

Guest		19-Jan-2006 07:57
hey...there's a new sigma 17-70. sounds like your ideal zoom range!

hotpepper		01-Jan-2006 13:55
Happy New Year!!! I happened to read some of your recent comments and there were some indication. ;-)

lightrules		01-Jan-2006 07:47
hotpepper, you win, you got it right. I don't know HOW you guessed right, but 100400IS it is. You win a brand new...visit to this site anytime you like! ;)

hotpepper		08-Dec-2005 16:38
Bigo!! Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ;-)

David		07-Dec-2005 22:38
My guess is the Sigma APO 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX OS.

lightrules		06-Dec-2005 21:19
Good guesses thus far. I'll be posting some very interesting findings at the end of this week, along with which lens I chose. Stay tuned.

hotpepper		06-Dec-2005 19:48
Mmm ........ "long" lens ....... APO 80-400mm f4.5/f5.6 EX DG OS

David		06-Dec-2005 19:27
Well, then I'll guess EF 200 2.8L. Since you've already got a 2x converter that you're happy with, you'd have a 400 5.6 combo.

lightrules		06-Dec-2005 15:42
Hi, the 24-105 isn't really a "long" lens. I'm talking about something from the 200-500 range. But nice try!

Guest		06-Dec-2005 08:15
fstopjojo said "I have FINALLY chosen my LONG lens and Feel free to try and GUESS which lens it is". Canon 24-105mm f4 ?

Guest		30-Nov-2005 04:48
There's a new sigma 24-105mm f2.8-f4 just released a couple of mths ago. Anyone got it, pls post some comments.

BCHU		23-Nov-2005 16:34
i'm deciding to get the 70-200, mainly because of the flare issue->i believe all the shops in my area have the lenses with flare problem stocked. also, it is very hard to find, usually out of stock online and in the stores. 70-200 is more practical for me as 24-105 is only a bit longer than my 24-70, meaning i actually have 24-70 part of the 24-105. i hope i get a good copy

Hards80		23-Nov-2005 05:16
i just realized i totally misread your thread BCHU.. was thinking of the older 28-105 for some reason.. the 24-105 seems to be a pretty good lens, though not sure of its value as it is quite pricey and from what i have seen is not quite up to the same standards as the 24-70L and such.. but i am sure its a good general purpose lens..

Hards80		22-Nov-2005 04:47
BCHU i really think a 28-105 will be quite redundant with the aforementioned kit.. and at 28mm, you are limited in your wide-angle capabilities.. which come up quite often with a walkaround lens.. (heck i use my tokina 12-24 as my primary walkaround :) save the money for your 70-200 2.8.. if you really need 1 lens, pick up the sigma 18-200, covers more range and is not far off the 28-105 optically.. cheers..

BCHU		17-Nov-2005 07:46
besides the 70-200, i've also been thinking about a lens in the general-tele range. any lenses to recommend that is similar to the canon 24-105? i just tried it at a photo store, and it was sweet! super-silent fast AF, really sharp pictures, though not f2.8, f4 and IS will cut it for me! thinking of getting this lens for most of my use, and when i need a faster lens-for indoor shots etc, i'll switch to my 24-70 f2.8, and for wide-angle, my tokina 12-24.

BCHU		17-Nov-2005 07:37
for me, i chose the 24-70 instead of the 18-50 because i found 50mm was too short for most of my shooting needs. instead, my setup is: Tokina 12-24 f4, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 macro. i got a really wide lens-the tokina, and a general/wide zoom in the 24-70. All i need is a 70-200 f2.8!! in terms of focusing speed, i can't comment as i have not tried the tamron

lwestfall		17-Nov-2005 04:25
"What a long, strange trip it's been...." Wow, looks like it's true TANSTAAFL, eh? Maybe Canon will come out with an 18-70/2.8 IS for you at some point? Or maybe you'll try for a good 18-50EX again sometime? (So which is more important to you, then, the 18-24mm end or the 47-70mm end?) For now I think your setup is great though: Two great IS zooms covering 17-200mm, and excellent fast primes for all the speed and bokeh you could ever need! More than most have! Enjoy and take care bro! --Lincoln :)

Alexander Chen		16-Nov-2005 23:27
Thanks,I will consider that! One more thing, howz the focus speed, Sigma and Tamron both hasn't got HSM ultrasonic focus, still fast smooth as well? Thanks

hotpepper		16-Nov-2005 19:33
IMO if you have a wide angle lens like 20mm f1.8 which fstopjojo has or 10 - 20mm then I think the 24 - 70mm is ideal but if you need only one wide+ lens then the 18 - 50mm f2.8 is good, coupled with a 70 - 200mm f2.8 you are on target.

Jaetie		16-Nov-2005 13:02
BCHU, i think hotpepper knew that jojo no longer uses the 18-50 cos when you go into the 'my lenses' gallery, the 18-50 is no longer there ;)

BCHU		16-Nov-2005 08:03
how did u tell he was not using the 18-50 anymore? I am clueless! alex: 18-50 is different zoom range from tamron, so cannot be compared. i just got the 24-70, its AMAZING! sharp, bright colours, reasonably fast focus, nice build quality, and 82mm diameter! tamron build quality is not as good. so it is cheaper

Alexander Chen		16-Nov-2005 02:46
I thinking to get Sigma 18-50 F2.8 or 23-70 F2.8 , and compare to Tamron 28-75..whiche one had better quality ? thanks

lightrules		13-Nov-2005 18:18
Good observation. I will comment on this lens and situation shortly. Check back.

hotpepper		13-Nov-2005 18:01
fstopjojo: I noticed you not using the Sigma 18 - 50mm F2.8 anymore pls let me know the reason and what are you intent to replace it with? Thanks

BCHU		13-Nov-2005 10:26
hey...anyone got the new 24-105? from what i've heard its a great lens!

lightrules		08-Nov-2005 19:15
I think the 2470L will serve you well for a LONG time. At the end of the day, there is no better standard zoom. Enjoy the lens and the light.

JLim		08-Nov-2005 18:29
I've asked some questions here before and thank you so much for answering them so quickly. And, thank you once again for your awesome reviews. However, despite the fact that I read the first two comparisons everytime I had internet access, I decided to go with...dun dun dun...the more expensive and heavier of the three lenses. Yes, the Canon L. I tried all thee lenses at a local store and I liked the Canon's color and sharpness the best. Well, I'm not here to say that Canon is the best, but to say that your review really helped me with my final decision with no regrets. I probably won't visit your site as much, but will be outside, as you put it, "enjoying the light." Thank you, and keep up the good work!

lwestfall		05-Nov-2005 18:08
BCHU, you can just post the link to your PhotoBucket page where the pictures are, that should do.

BCHU		05-Nov-2005 12:16
how do i post images here? i have images that are already hosted by photobucket, and how do i post them here? i want to show some pictures of my 70mm f2.8 shots

Daniel G		05-Nov-2005 01:45
lwestfall - I'm in Australia, so I don't know if they'd be able to send it off to the US for me. I don't really have that many shots of this lens @ 70mm 2.8. I can say though, the performance of this lens @ 24mm is really inconsistent. Sometimes it returns great results and then sometimes it returns completely unacceptable photos. I'm not really sure if it's front focusing, I think this lens is just a dud in general. Sometimes @ 70mm 2.8 it's terrible as well, but not very often.

lwestfall		04-Nov-2005 14:40
Daniel -- The main Sigma service center in Ronkonkoma, NY should be able to fix the front focusing for you and get it back to you within a week or two max if you tell them you need it back soon. Japan could take alot longer. BTW, you said yours is amazing at 70mm -- can you post some 100% f/2.8 crops somewhere? Good luck. --Lincoln :)

Daniel G		04-Nov-2005 12:07
lwestfall - I've handed it in to the Sigma service centre here ( C&R Kennedy or some crap ) and they believe it meets Sigma's specification. They offered to send it off to Sigma Japan ( which I want to do ) but I only have this, the 50mm and 70-300, so I'll be limited in what I can shoot while it's being sent off. They also don't offer and loan lenses.

lightrules		03-Nov-2005 22:06
It certainly wasn't intentional but it does seem so; you wouldn't believe how many emails I've received over the past 15 months saying how incredible the 2470EX is, folks from all over the world.

lwestfall		03-Nov-2005 21:56
Jojo -- I think you have created quite a fan base for the 24-70EX. :) BCHU -- It would be interesting to see crops showing your 24-70EX's wide-open sharpness at 70mm. Daniel G -- If your 24-70EX is front-focusing, definitely send it in to Sigma with some test pics, and they should be able to fix it for you no problem. Good luck!

Daniel G		03-Nov-2005 12:28
My favourite lens would be my Canon 50mm f/1.8 II. It's light, fast ( apeture wise ) and incredibly sharp. I would like to say that my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is my favourite lens, but its performance at 24mm ( not sure, but I believe it is front focusing ). At 70mm, it is absolutely amazing though.

BCHU		03-Nov-2005 04:18
i think that my current favourite lens is my newly bought Sigma 24-70 f2.8EX DG Macro. after reading about how great a lens it is, i proceeded to buy it, and i have never looked back since! IMO its a wonderful general purpose lens, especially on my 1.6X 350D. On a full-frame body, i think this lens would be too short for me. 70mm on my 1.6X sensor would mean 112 mm, the traditional sweet spot of portrait photography being 85-105mm. great as i love taking portraits. also, i like its fast focusing speed. on my copy of this lens, it focuses quickly, and seldom hunts. Since buying this lens, i have sold off my EF-S 18-55 kit lens, finding it too short for my liking!

lwestfall		02-Nov-2005 08:16
Jojo, yes, my 70-200/2.8L non-IS does deliver the best image quality of any lens I have (and it was quite the steal at $770), but I just tend to use the 24-70mm range alot more. And yes, I was more than happy to pay a small premium for your used 24-70EX, knowing it was a stellar copy and that those sometimes seem hard to come by. It was well worth it seeing how it clearly matches the 24-70/2.8L in image quality yet still cost me less than half what I'd have to pay for the L. I can imagine you missing this gem, but don't despair, I trust that your 18-50/2.8EX's AF will work out and you'll be camping plenty happy with it on your camera. I wish you all the best! --Lincoln :)

lightrules		02-Nov-2005 07:18
Lincoln, interesting choice, only because I know you've got the excellent 70-200L as well. But I'm glad you like the 2470EX so much. I must be honest: I miss that lens a lot, and I think about getting another copy (sigh) every so often! But you paid a premium for it, so enjoy it and keep capturing the light!

lwestfall		02-Nov-2005 03:56
My favorite lens would have to be... my Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG Macro! :) My top 3 reasons are: 1) It is soooo SHARP even wide open [ here's my own recent test: http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/image/51076066 ], 2) It focuses very fast and accurately, and 3) It's FSTOPJOJO's famous L-Killer!!! :) Thanks Jojo! --Lincoln :)

lightrules		31-Oct-2005 15:27
I primarily use the 20EX for indoors, especially in the evenings or when the light levels are lower. I like to use it for close ups as well, often shooting wide open. When I go out, it's usually the 1850EX.

Guest		31-Oct-2005 07:36
Thanks for your reply -- so do you find yourself taking the 20/1.8 with you even though you have the 18-50?

lightrules		31-Oct-2005 05:24
Greetings. I don't think I'll ever get rid of "El Hombre" (i.e., Sigma 20 f1.8 EX DG). It's a bit "clumsy" in terms of handling but it is just too good a lens, pound for pound, to ever give up. I used to have the 20f1.8 + 2470f2.8 combo, but have now moved to the 1850f2.8. The only reason I did it was for the focal range, although I now have my doubts once again. I loved that 2470f2.8 lens (plus it's FF compatible). As for the older 2470f2.8, I thought my copy was good and probably good enough for most folks: fairly sharp even wide open, good contrast, acceptable bokeh, etc. But I must say I like the newer "EX DG Macro" version a bit more, both in terms of optical performance and aesthetics. The new version can be had for about $365. It is still IMO a remarkable lens, especially at that price point. It all comes down to focal range though between the 1850 and 2470. That's something you need to weigh and decide on. Optically they are both very good.

Guest		31-Oct-2005 04:56
Fstopjojo -- Thank you for all of your reviews. Very helpful. I was wondering -- I think there are still some of the non macro versions of the 24-70 floating around for real cheap ~230$ Is there a big difference versuses the macro version and is it worth the price difference? I purchased a 18-50 and it backfocused so I returned it; am now torn between getting a 24-70 (non-macro) + a 20 f1.8 or trying a 18-50 again? the 1st combo would only cost a little over 100$ more and would give me the extra stop on the prime and the tele range. Any advice on the two setups since you have had both? (i know you have commented on the 24-70 vs 18-50 but i was wondering about the specific combo that you used before with the 20/1.8) Thanks so much.

lightrules		24-Oct-2005 04:06
Thanks for the kind words. As for the 1850 and 2470, the latter AF's faster but the 1850 is not slow by any means. The 1850 is a tad slower but also quieter. As for the 2 primes, they're different lenses and have real different uses. I've considered doing a little test between them but concluded they are such well-known, well-received lenses already that they really speak for themselves. If I had to have only one, I'd get the 85 f1.8. It's a special lens with nice build and ring USM (and the AF smokes).

JLim		24-Oct-2005 03:42
Great reviews! And your pictures are beautiful! Why don't you share some more photos! Well, I have few questions I wanted to ask... First, between the Sigma 18-50mm or the 24-70mm, which of the two would you say auto-focuses quicker? I know that in your comparison between sigma and tamron, you noted that Sigma focuses much quicker than the Tamron. Second, can you do a comparison tests between 50 f1.4 and the 85 f1.8? I'll probably try all of them at a local camera stores before I buy any of them, but I want to know everything about the product before I try them out. =) Thanks so much!

lightrules		12-Oct-2005 22:03
You mean test these flash guns on various lenses to see which ones actually can achieve proper focus in lowlight? [J/K] Actually, I don't plan to do anything with flashes. I use the Sigma EF 500 Super DG and it works extremely well. Thanks for the input though.

AlpineMan		12-Oct-2005 21:27
Hi Jojo! I know this isn't a lens comment, but any plans on head-to-head comparison tests between the Sigma EF-500 DG Super, Canon 550EX, and Canon 580EX flashes?

BCHU		24-Sep-2005 08:49
hey...sigma has a new 28-105 f2.8-4 DG lens. anyone used this before? i don't know if i should get this or the 24-70mm EX. Should i get better quality? or better range? Users of this 28-105 (even the older non DG one) pls tell me more abt this lens

Stefaan Ellebaut		19-Sep-2005 15:11
Thx Jojo, I would definately use a 2x convertor because I want to use it mainly for plane spotting, a 1.4x is not enough then... And a sigma 70-200 2.8 + Kenkoi 2x convertor costs almost as much like the Canon 100-400L, but then with better aperture and still usesable as a 70-200 also... Greetz, Faan

lightrules		19-Sep-2005 14:57
BCHU, you might want to seriously consider some f2.8 lenses such as the Sigmas 18-50/24-70 or the Tamron 28-75. IMO they are the best standard zooms apart from the 24-70L. You can also take a look at the Canon 28-135IS, which is well-liked by many of its users. Stefaan, if you are going to use a 2xTC for sure, get the f2.8 zoom. AF will still work and it'll perform better overall. The 1 stop difference is significant. Best wishes.

Stefaan Ellebaut		19-Sep-2005 14:40
Hey Jojo, thx again for the nice tests which made me deside to buy the Sigma 24-70! Now I have another question. Somebody is selling his Canon 70-200L F/4.0 for 500 euro's. Is this useable with a 2x convertor? Or should I save a time longer and go for the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 to use with a 2x convertor? Greetz, Faan

BCHU		19-Sep-2005 09:37
hey thinking about a "general" travel lens in the category of 28-105. Currently thinking about the Canon 28-105 f3.5-5.6 USM II. Is this good? and, are there any better deals i should consider from SIGMA/TAMRON/TOKINA etc.?

thw		14-Sep-2005 01:08
Just saw your update for Sep-13. Totally understand how you feel. I've been through similar experiences: the stress and all. Sigh... That's why I've decided when I've found something something good, I am not letting it go regardless of how promising the next best thing is supposed to be. In your case you still have your other lenses: Canon 35 f/2, 85 f/1.8, Sigma 18-125: these should surely suffice for now. :)

lightrules		16-Aug-2005 19:42
David, the Sigma is a very good choice, but I should let you know that the Tamron 28-75 is a "Di" lens and it will work well with both full frame and sub-frame cameras. It is similar to a Sigma "DG" designation. However, Tamron's "Di II" or Sigma's "DC" lenses are made specifically for 1.6x SLRs. Hope this helps.

David		16-Aug-2005 19:02
M@RS, Wow! This is really late. But I had to respond. I too am looking at the 24-70 range of Canon/Sigma/Tamron. But I have decided that Tamrons Di (which I believe means 1.6x digital cameras only) is not for me. Some day I will have a full frame camera, since lens last a long time I want a full frame lens. So Canon and Sigma are left. Right now the Sigma is my choice.

lightrules		16-Aug-2005 15:02
Daniel, I've shot a lot of lenses, and NONE focus as SLOW as the 80-400. Optically, very nice; but watching that AF move from MFD to infinity was like watching a dying snail move across a walkway. Very sad.

Daniel G		16-Aug-2005 10:37
Interesting comments about those 4 lenses you tried today. I havn't heard of anyone else having problems with the 80-400 having really slow focus. Obviously with the lack of HSM it'll be slowish... but the way you're going on about it... it seems like it's really bad. Will have to try one for my self and see if it really is that bad. Any chance you of posting some test shots from the lenses?

lightrules		09-Aug-2005 14:56
I've posted my thoughts and comments on these 2 lenses (24-70EX, 28-75Di) a lot here at my site (and elsewhere). Look at my galleries on these lenses. Both lenses can be very good, both lenses can have QC issues. My guess is that you'd be happy either way on your 350D/XT, though my strong preference is the Sigma. Best wishes.

M@RS		09-Aug-2005 13:18
Hi fstopjojo, I want to buy the canon eos 350d,but i cant get up my mind between these two lenses:the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF and the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX -DG.....I dont know but i have read some reviews about sigma lenses and it looks like if all sigma lenses have af-problems in combination with the Canon 350d/xt.Please give me some advice about these lenses.Wich one is better? Tamron or Sigma

Daniel G		08-Aug-2005 06:17
Considering the 80-400? Get it just so you can test it, then I can make up my mind for once on which tele lens to buy!

lightrules		08-Aug-2005 05:07
Sam, congrats on getting the fine 10-22. I am sure you'll get real creative with that one. As for the 70-200IS, if you do end up getting it, make sure to use all your other lenses a lot now because they'll feel real neglected once that guy's around [wink]. Anyway, best wishes and keep on shooting.

Sam Chen		08-Aug-2005 01:53
Hey Jojo, I see you are thinking about the Sigma 10-20, I was waiting for this one however patience wasn't a virtue for me in this case. I found a great deal on Fred Miranda's buy/sell forum. Somone on it was looking to trade his Canon 10-22 for a Sigma 70-200, straight across. For both of us it was a win win deal! I was all over the Superwide. I love the 10-22! However I am on the quest for a new 70-200, of which I am going with Canon this next time around due in part to the IS as I found I couldn't get great shots from my shaky hands with the Sigma. :(

lightrules		19-Jun-2005 15:52
Focusing issues are not unheard of with some of the Sigma standard zooms (e.g., 18-50, 24-60/70, 28-70, 18-125); of course, there are focusing problems for Tamrons and some Canons too. Regardless, the 18-50 works quite well, and you should be all right. If there is a focus-related issue with your specific lens, it can be sent to Sigma for either a fix or replacement. They're quite good about this. Several folks on the forums have had their 18-50 fixed and their lenses work excellent now.

Guest		19-Jun-2005 14:38
Hi fstopjojo, I am very concerned about possible mis-focusing issues with 18-50 2.8EX and 24-70 on either 20D or 350D. Only this makes me look toward Canon 17-85 IS USM. How bad of an issue is it? Should I be worried about compatibility of the Sigma lenses and Canon cameras, or even with Canon's new flash Speedlight 580? Thanks.

lightrules		19-Jun-2005 02:38
I got the 70-200IS only because of the IS; I think it's fantastic and my specific copy is excellent. Optically, the 70-200EX holds its own against ANY of the Canon 70-200s, period. Best wishes, Ben, and post some images when you get your lens.

Ben Jacobsen		19-Jun-2005 02:11
Interesting..... You had the Sigma 70~200mm and Bigma 50~500mm and in your tests a different copy of the canon 70~200mm F2.8 IS didn't fair so well, but not you bought one? What happened to your to long sigma zooms, and why the canon? I'm very interested to see how it fairs, as I am waiting to buy my 70~200mm f2.8, so I'll be looking for some more of your awesome tests with the new copy! Ben

lightrules		26-May-2005 03:39
About the 100-300 EX, I doubt I'll get to that one. I have only heard fantastic reports about this lens though, both from peers and online comments. I'd say get it if this range fits your needs.

Drew		22-May-2005 21:21
I really enjoy all the reviews will you ever review the SIGMA 100-300MM HSM F/4 lens i hear its pretty good

lightrules		26-Apr-2005 00:30
That is a real hard one, as those (18-50, 24-70) are my two favorite standard zooms. I like the 18-50 for it's very good optical performance, nice wide 18mm, lightweight, and excellent AF accuracy. I like the 24-70 also for it's very good optics, extremely fast AF, robust build, and FF compatibility. Given GOOD copies of either will satisfy the serious photographer.

Guest		25-Apr-2005 23:42
interesting... so would you say that the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX is a better all around lens than the 18-50 EX?

Craigs		25-Apr-2005 22:43
So what are your favorite lens starting at 1-20? Craigs

lightrules		19-Apr-2005 03:37
sm_man: Thanks for commenting and you make a good point. In short, I have shot all these lens test galleries with a 20D set to Parameter 1. So in this sense at least everything is constant for each lens. If I am shooting for sale or for some other significant event, I shoot RAW.

sm_man		19-Apr-2005 03:07
Hi, Fstopjojo. Many thanks for your helpfull test. Can you add comment on each of the test on what parameter the test shots has been taken? I saw that only "Zoom vs Primes" you noted shot with Parameter1. The reasan I am asking this is because sometimes I need to compare your result with my other lens and it is best compared at minimal sharpening with Parameter 2. The other questions is why use parameter 1? Why not Parameter2 with "0" on contrast, sharpness and saturation? As images are sharpened more in camera, the more difficult to tell the difference. Thank you once again.

Fredrik		26-Mar-2005 13:58
Thank you for convincing me that the 18-50 is the right choice. I'll get it next week.

click on thumbnails for full image