Page 1 of 1
lense quality
Posted:
Fri May 04, 2007 11:07 amby Swinners
Hey guys and girls im only very new hear and realatively new to the whole photographic scene. I have just recently purchased a Canon 400D and am looking for a couple of upgrades from the kit lenses. My main question is canon lenses have differing quality going up to the L series lenses. Do the other lense makers such as sigma and tamaron have this kind of structure and how can you tell what quality there lenses are.
I hope everyone understands my question. Thanks in advance for any help.
Cheers Luke
Posted:
Fri May 04, 2007 11:13 amby Raskill
I know Sigma has an 'Ex' range, that is supposedly their 'pro' ranges. Lenses suck as their 24-70 F/2.8, 70-200 F/2.8, 120-300 F/2.8 and 300mm F/2.8 all fall in this catagory.
Sigma isn't a bad option if money is a bit tight. I've got all Sigma lenses and am very happy with them.
Can't speak for tamrom though.
Posted:
Fri May 04, 2007 11:54 amby bwhinnen
Raskill wrote:I know Sigma has an 'Ex' range, that is supposedly their 'pro' ranges. Lenses suck as their 24-70 F/2.8, 70-200 F/2.8, 120-300 F/2.8 and 300mm F/2.8 all fall in this catagory.
Sigma isn't a bad option if money is a bit tight. I've got all Sigma lenses and am very happy with them.
Can't speak for tamrom though.
That's a bit of a slip-up there Alan! Are you saying that your Sigma lenses suck
Posted:
Fri May 04, 2007 12:00 pmby sirhc55
At the present time I do not have one Nikon lens - all Sigma and a lone Tamron - all great lenses.
Although good quality glass can be an asset under certain conditions, it really comes down to the person taking the photograph and not the equipment.
Posted:
Fri May 04, 2007 12:41 pmby Raskill
bwhinnen wrote:Raskill wrote:I know Sigma has an 'Ex' range, that is supposedly their 'pro' ranges. Lenses suck as their 24-70 F/2.8, 70-200 F/2.8, 120-300 F/2.8 and 300mm F/2.8 all fall in this catagory.
Sigma isn't a bad option if money is a bit tight. I've got all Sigma lenses and am very happy with them.
Can't speak for tamrom though.
That's a bit of a slip-up there Alan! Are you saying that your Sigma lenses suck
'Such', I meant 'such', all you freudians out there can go smoke a cigar!!!
Posted:
Fri May 04, 2007 3:00 pmby bwhinnen
Raskill wrote:bwhinnen wrote:Raskill wrote:I know Sigma has an 'Ex' range, that is supposedly their 'pro' ranges. Lenses suck as their 24-70 F/2.8, 70-200 F/2.8, 120-300 F/2.8 and 300mm F/2.8 all fall in this catagory.
Sigma isn't a bad option if money is a bit tight. I've got all Sigma lenses and am very happy with them.
Can't speak for tamrom though.
That's a bit of a slip-up there Alan! Are you saying that your Sigma lenses suck
'Such', I meant 'such', all you freudians out there can go smoke a cigar!!!
But it was fun
Sorry to hijack a perfectly good thread... I've not used any Sigma lenses either normal or EX so I can't comment.
Posted:
Fri May 04, 2007 4:42 pmby gstark
Raskill wrote:I know Sigma has an 'Ex' range, that is supposedly their 'pro' ranges. Lenses suck as their 24-70 F/2.8, 70-200 F/2.8, 120-300 F/2.8 and 300mm F/2.8 all fall in this catagory.
Freudian Slip, Alan?