... ^ eat me

How can you possibly be so stupid/ignorant/fullofshit at such a consistant rate?

I have a tamron and it's par with the pricey canon 24-70

Tamron is junk? Have you even used one before?

Like Tom said, the 28-75/2.8 is VERY good, matching the performence of the Canon 24-70 or the Nikon 28-70. I've had it when I shot Nikon and it was VERY SHARP.

The new 17-50/2.8 is also very good even when compared to the Canon 17-55 IS... Sure the Tamron doesn't have IS or USM, but it also costs $1000 bucks less, and certianly not 1/3rd the performence!.

Don't knock a lens if you haven't even used one before. If anything the Tamron 28-75 is a better lens than the Sigma 24-70.

He meant to say Tokina, but still, they have good lenses available.

Err....Tokina has the ATX range, their pro lenses which are on par with the major manufacturers. Built like a tank. You don't know what you're talking about do you? You just read shit on the all powerful internet and believe whatever is written without confirming anything. Do a little research and tests and form your own opinions instead of being an armchair lens tester. The Tokina ATX version of their 80-200 f2.8 is sharper than my Tamron 70-210 f2.8 SP LD.

Oh, BTW...Tokina is no longer in the Canadian market.

I have a tokina, and I like it a lot. Other than my 300mm IS, it's the most common lens on my camera.

Majin: Open mouth, insert foot.

the only downsides to the sigma is lack of hsm (something the tamron doesnt have either) and 82mm filters.

...so what exactly makes the tamron a better lens than the sigma?

I've heard really good things about good copies of the Tammy 28-75 being a gem as far as standard zooms go.

my only complaint so far with the sigma is that it is quite soft at 2.8

I had a textbook example of this recently... Mark (Lowside) and I were researching to get a couple good tripods and started looking at Manfrotto. More specifically, the 714B. I read a couple reviews about it, and almost didnt get it, then we went to try them out at Kerrisdale Camera... I'm glad I did, cause we both got one. Just got back from a trip I took it on and it's great.

Research is definitely an important part of the equation, but testing is crucial.

That being said, I tested both the 10-22 Canon, and the equivalent Tamron, and have to say that I was quite unimpressed with the Tammy. Comparitively, is was slow, and really just felt cheap. No weight to it...

with the copies that I've used, the Tamron's sharp at f2.8 and totally usable, whereas the Sigma is soft and to me that defeats the whole purpose of having an f2.8 lens - no point in having one if you can't use it wide open.

your mileadge may vary

:angel2:

Erm, dude....NO lens other than some Leicas & Zeiss are at their sharpest wide open. Consumer grade lenses are almost always at their sharpest when stopped down to between f5.6-f11. The f2.8 just gives you that much wiggle room to get a useable photo in low light.

i think thats the biggest problem with sigma/tamron, they vary so much copy to copy. i have the sigma ex dg macro and love it, older versions arent as good from what i've seen/heard. i just wish it was hsm/77mm.

how much would a

Canon EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

cost brand new?

^ not sure but there's one for sale for $200 something on bcc forum

BCC???

and are you sure its the IS USM one?

oh no i'm not sure
i just remember seeing 75-300 :p

bcc is broadway camera
i see u on there now :)

ramir just get a 70-200 f/4 for 650 can used :D

very very sharp :D

no no coz a friend of mine is selling his

Canon EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon ET-64II Lens Hood (for 75-300 mm IS)
Hoya 58 mm UV Pro 1 Filter (for 75-300mm IS)

that whole thing for $500 and i wanna buy it for my 30D

the 70-200 comes with a hood as well and most may sell their lens with a UV filter too

you get the L colors!

lol but that's more money, money that i don't have... >.<

easier to resell back out too!