Hi folks,

Thinking of getting a wide angle and zoom lense for my EOS 10D and was wondering what people recommended. Not sure I can afford genuine Canon lenses, so was tempted by these two by Tamron....

Tamron SP AF 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di-II LD
Tamron SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD IF

Anyone had any experience of these (although I don't think the 11-18 has been released yet), or can you suggest any good alternatives. Not Sigma though, had their lenses before and swore never to have them again....

Have to agree with you on the Sigma's i have tried three in the past and all had serious malfunctions.

Cant say anything about Tamrons but try 7dayshop.com they have some good deals on canon lenses.

True, but even with the discount, the big Canon lense is still a lot more expensive than the Tamron, and they don't make an ultra wide angle lense that will fit the 10D (only fits the 20D).

Thanks anyway :)

Ian, does the 10d not have the 1.6 multiplication factor, in which case at the longest focal length that big zoom is going to be an 800mm equivalent :eek:

I've got a canon EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM which is on my 20d a 160 to 480 mm equivalent and its a great lens for the money.

Think they retail around £279 at the moment.

Yes it's got the 1.6 multi-factor. That's why why I want such a small (11mm) wide angle lense as it actually works out at 17.6mm when you stick it on the 10D.

I've got a slightly dodgy Cosina 100-300mm lense at the moment (goes blurry / fuzzy when approaching max zoom) which I want to replace. Fancied something that would have a bit more magnification and quality (although I realise it will probably limit me to using a tripod).

Will probably be using the zoom mostly for motorsport (track days, f1gp etc), and maybe the odd wildlife shot...

The best lens I ever had was a 1981 SIGMA ......... and the worst, a NIKON lens.

When I part exchanged the Sigma 20 years later I got £75 (It only cost me £99!) - the Nikon lens was 3 months old and I got allowed £20 PartEx.!

So don't just discount SIGMA .... they make outstanding lenses - just the same as Nikon/Canon make some crap lenses!

Pete

7dayshop is doing them for £199 inc vat :D

Well my last Sigma 28-80mm didn't work with the 10D at all, (even though it worked ok with my normal EOS SLR), and the two I had before that both developed faults in the electronics. I'm very careful how I treat them as well, so I know they weren't abused. Sort of put me off sigmas.

The Sigma wide angles also don't have a screw thread for filters, (at lest that's what I read in the review on the net) so that doesn't really fit in with what I'm after.

What's the picture quality like on the EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM when at max zoom? I was thinking of going for a larger zoom so I don't have to use it at max zoom, but more in the middle of its range wher the picture quality tends to be better...

The picture quality is excellent at 300mm on my EOS 30 - haven't had the opportunity to try it on the 20d, but expect good results.

Its one of the better of the non L series lenses, and I've just seen it on 7day shop for £199 :eek:

http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/ef_lenses/zoom_lenses/ef_100300mm_f4556_usm/index.asp

BTW - apparently some of the older Sigma lenses don't work with the 10/20d's unless re-chipped.

Fair enough. I think that's the zoom sorted then. It's either going to be one of those, or the 100-400mm with built in image stabalization. Bit pricey that one though ;)

Any suggestions for a decent wide angle?

just a bit :)

no experience of anything that would suit the 10d on the wideangle front

I quite fancy the ef-s 10-22mm, but that would be no use for yours being an "S" mount.

I know. That's the one I wanted to get, but it won't fit :(

The best lens I ever had was a 1981 SIGMA ......... and the worst, a NIKON lens.

When I part exchanged the Sigma 20 years later I got £75 (It only cost me £99!) - the Nikon lens was 3 months old and I got allowed £20 PartEx.!

So don't just discount SIGMA .... they make outstanding lenses - just the same as Nikon/Canon make some crap lenses!

Pete
Not discounting sigma Pete just personal experience.
I had two new ones with my old eos 600 second was a replacement for the first one and the apertures jammed on both of them so i payed a bit more for a canon equivalent and never had any problems.

A couple of years ago i bought a guaranteed second hand sigma for my eos 100 as it was such a good deal and it went straight back to the shop when the autofocus became totally erratic so no more sigma for me

I have no direct experience of the Tamron lenses so cannot advise directly.

I know you say you don't like Sigma and I've had mixed quality as well.

But for wide, take a look at the Sigma 12-24mm. Stopped down a bit it produces perfectly good images. Sure, a little on the soft side towards the edges of the frame, but then it is a cheap lens. You can use filters on it, but you get vignetting if you are below about 17mm. But there are ways to run front mounted filters on these using bits from Lee Filters etc. Example shot on a 10D below.

For the zoom, take a look at the Sigma 50-500 (for the same sort of money as the Tamron). I had this lens for a while and was quite happy with the output from it (example below, again on 10D). I chopped it in for the Canon 100-400 L IS mainly for the IS, less weight (I found I didn't need the extra 100mm) and much better image quality.

Cheers

Ian


Example Sigma 12-24mm shot (10D):
http://www.asrv84.dsl.pipex.com/Gallery/Architecture/Images/20040124_1450_2994.jpg


Example Sigma 50-500mm shot (10D):
http://www.asrv84.dsl.pipex.com/T25/Track/Images/20040207_0951_3278.jpg

Thanks for that Ian. Did you find that it was difficult to use the Sigma 500mm without a tripod? (I must admit the IS in the Canon is a very tempting feature ;) )

I'll keep the wide angle sigma in mind. The picture quality certainly doesn't look bad (and is a lot better that the Cosina I'm using at the moment).

The advantage of the Tamron is it does accept screw in filters (easier to carry when half way up a mountain) and the reviews I read rate it higher than the Sigma as far as image quality goes. Not released until later in the year though, and nobody seems to know how much it'll be...

Have you considered the Canon EF 400 5.6L. It may be a prime lens, but by all accounts it's better at 400 than the 100-400 and, at £800 from 7dayshop, a lot cheaper too. I have a 100-400 and to be honest I tend to use it mostly at the long end. If I was starting from scratch, I'd get the 400.

Regarding the wide angle, a lot of people like the Sigma 15mm 2.8 EX (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=76&sort=7&thecat=13) fisheye. On the 1.6 crop body it doesn't quite yield a full fisheye effect, but gives an exceptionally wide view, that can be corrected with software to simulate a rectilinear lens.

Interesting looking lense that one. I'm not sure I wanted a fisheye effect, (just a normal, wider view), but after looking at the images I quite like it (it's not too extreme on the 10D).

Any idea what this might look like with landscape photography? (can't seem to find any examples from a quick google)

try these (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=11696403) :)

I have a 100-400 and to be honest I tend to use it mostly at the long end. If I was starting from scratch, I'd get the 400.
Blimey, I wouldn't! I zoom that lens all the time - most often at motorsports events (when cars are approaching and moving away), but also to help locate small, distant targets like birds and aircraft in flight which can quickly leave the field of view at all.

Maybe if you're not into fast action photography like me it's not so critical, but I certainly wouldn't give up the zoom to save a few quid. Oddly enough, I find that I don't use IS half as much as I expected - I'm often panning or trying to follow a fast moving subject, under which circumstances it's really not that useful.

Iain,

The Sigma 50-500 can be hand held, for about two minutes :) I almost always used a monopod or some other sort of support. The T25 shot above was monopod mounted and even then it as blowing about 40 knots as well :)

The Canon 100-400 can be hand held all day and I do so for motorsport stuff. I'll monopod it though for wildlife work. the IS has been a god send to me, it makes up for my lack of technique at times.

The Canon 16-35L is a wonderful wide angle lens, but it is not at all cheap (just over £1K). It is however a lens you will keep forever. Not mega wide on the 10D but when you upgrade to the 1Ds MkII it will be :)

Daryl,

I tried the 400 5.6L on my 10D and to be honest couldn't see any difference in output than that from the output given by the 100-400 except maybe slightly better colour saturation. Anyway, nothing that Photoshop couldn't fix. :) Maybe it is sharper at the edges on full frame cameras? Even so, it was no good for me as my working range for motorsport is still around the 150-350mm mark, with an average usage of around 280mm (isn't EXIF info great :)).

Cheers

Ian

The Sigma 50-500 can be hand held, for about two minutes :) I almost always used a monopod or some other sort of support. The T25 shot above was monopod mounted and even then it as blowing about 40 knots as well :)

The Canon 100-400 can be hand held all day and I do so for motorsport stuff. I'll monopod it though for wildlife work. the IS has been a god send to me, it makes up for my lack of technique at times.

I thought that might be the case.

The Canon 16-35L is a wonderful wide angle lens, but it is not at all cheap (just over £1K). It is however a lens you will keep forever. Not mega wide on the 10D but when you upgrade to the 1Ds MkII it will be :)
LOL, I don't think that even with my weakness for gadgets I could justfy spending 5 grand on a camera.... although.....maybe... ;)

Thanks for the info :)
Iain

Sigma do make pretty good glass (for the money) imo. I've had no problems with my 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro Super II which tbh does what it says on the tin and gets great reviews. :)

Just discovered this site. All photos taken with a 20D and the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=138954

Pretty stunning photos, and just the sort of effect I am after. Not a cheap lense (around £570) but it seems to get good results... :D

Lovely shots in that gallery, but don't expect them to come straight out of the camera like that, even with the 17-40. How are your Photoshop skills? ;)

Nice lens though, but not very wide on a 10D, 35mm equivalent is 27mm at it's widest setting :(

I realise that, but was using it more to demonstrate the kind of effect I was after. It's got a very good minimum aperture (22) which explains how they got the foreground and background in such good focus...

Has the 20D got a much different zoom factor to the 10D? (wondered if you could get the same field of view from the 10D)

The 10D and 20D both have a 1.6 crop factor. As far as I know, most lenses will stop down to about f32, allowing good depth of field, especially using the hyperfocal (http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3513.htm) technique. It's the other end that costs the money! :)

Here's the spec...

http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/ef_lenses/zoom_lenses/EF_17-40mm_f-4L_USM/index.asp?specs=1

it's f4 with a minimum aperture of 22. Just seemed from the gallery to have a much better image quality, and be able to get a lot more in than my current "wide angle" Consina lense which is 19-35mm.

There's no doubt that the 17-40 is a cracking lens, with excellent image quality and heavyweight build. If it's wide enough for you, then go for it. The only thing I would suggest, is that you go to your local camera store and try it out first, comparing it to a few others while you're there :)

If I had a decent local camera store I would :(

That's why I'm trying to find info on the internet and your opinions are very much appreciated :)....