lets compare the zillions of lense out there

[redonnemoi]

hi

i am confounded by the zillion brands of zoom lens, macro lens, lensbaby, tilt shift, etc etc :thumbsup:

is there an article or webpage out there that carefully compares and discusses the picture quality of all these different lenses? for example, compares all telephoto zoom lenses of a similar focal length range? i want the same for macro, if its possible.

thanks

[Canuck935]

The short answer no. You'll have to do your own searches for lenses. You can find plenty of user reviews on this site, and you can also google for test results. It shouldn't take that much work really. Generally, if you stick with lenses from your camera's brand or from reputable 3rd party manufacturers such as Tamron and Sigma you can't really go wrong.

[EOSThree]

Photo Zone has a pretty good review section, it's not comprehensive but pretty darn good.

[Frog]

Ken Rockwell does lens reviews but you have to dig them up.
I think there are just too many for anyone to do comprehensive tests/reviews and post them as side by side comparisons.

[Photo-John]

One thing that makes lens reviews tough is that there can be variations in the optical quality. So to really accurately test a lens, you need to test multiple samples. And no one can do that. User reviews are good because you get reports from multiple sources. I also like Popular Photography's MTF tests for serious testing. But mostly I just stick with brands I know and trust, and go by user reports.

[redonnemoi]

One thing that makes lens reviews tough is that there can be variations in the optical quality. So to really accurately test a lens, you need to test multiple samples. And no one can do that. User reviews are good because you get reports from multiple sources. I also like Popular Photography's MTF tests for serious testing. But mostly I just stick with brands I know and trust, and go by user reports.

by multiple samples you mean multiple copies of the same lens?

[Photo-John]

by multiple samples you mean multiple copies of the same lens?

Yes - that's correct. And then the test results would be averaged to get a more accurate result.

[AgingEyes]

hi

is there an article or webpage out there that carefully compares and discusses the picture quality of all these different lenses? for example, compares all telephoto zoom lenses of a similar focal length range? i want the same for macro, if its possible.

thanks

Some magazines do that. I think Popular Photography website has an article on whether pricey lenses are sharper, better or something like that. Since you mentioned macro, Sigma 70 f2.8 seems to be the sharpest out there - sharper than micro Nikkor 105 f2.8 VR or Tamron 90 for examples - according to Pop Photo and also here http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php.

[redonnemoi]

so i have another question:

if I see that Canon, Tamron, and Sigma all sell a zoom lens of similar zoom range, why on earth should I buy the most expensive (Canon) version? Do I really care about the pretty red circle on the end of the lens? Does it really hurt my picture quality to buy a second hand Tamron lens?

[WesternGuy]

so i have another question:

if I see that Canon, Tamron, and Sigma all sell a zoom lens of similar zoom range, why on earth should I buy the most expensive (Canon) version? Do I really care about the pretty red circle on the end of the lens? Does it really hurt my picture quality to buy a second hand Tamron lens?

A lot depends on the type of camera that you are putting the lens on and the resolution of its sensor. If we knew that then we might be able to give you a more specific answer. Anyway, my 0.02 ¢ FWIW . A lot of people use 3rd party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) and are quite happy with the results they get, whereas others use only their camera maker's lenses. The only thing you have to watch out for on any lens is the quality of the images that you get with it - if you are happy with them then who is going to say what lenses you should buy or not. This is true whether it is a Canon ($$$) lens or a 3rd party lens. I think that most will agree that there are some excellent 3rd party lenses out there and there are also some that are not so good. Same thing is probably true of the big names like Canon, Nikon, etc.

Those with the red ring around the end are another story and they are expensive. If you are just starting out, then you probably don't want, or need, one of these. It is my understanding that they are aimed at professionals, or serious amateurs, using a 1D or a 5D camera (not that they cannot be used on other Canon cameras)

Basically, like the rest of us, you have to do some homework and find postings where people have commented on how good, or bad, a particular lens is . Followup on some of the sites posted here. Once you have decided, then see if you can rent the lens for a weekend or a week and try it out. If it gives you the images you are happy with, then that is all that matters and you probably want to purchase it. Alternatively, find someone who has the lens you are interested in and see what image quality they get with it. Maybe they might even let you try it out.

Let us know a little more about what you are looking for, e.g., zoom telephoto, basic macro, etc., and maybe we can be more specific about lenses to look at. HTH

Cheers,

WesternGuy

[Photo-John]

if I see that Canon, Tamron, and Sigma all sell a zoom lens of similar zoom range, why on earth should I buy the most expensive (Canon) version? Do I really care about the pretty red circle on the end of the lens? Does it really hurt my picture quality to buy a second hand Tamron lens?

There are all kinds of reasons. Some mmay apply to you and some may not. More expensive lenses usually have better image quality, faster maximum apertures, and they're usually built better. And most people who try Canon L lenses don't want to use anything else after their first taste. On the other hand, there are Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma lenses with optics arguably as good as Canon L or Nikon ED glass. And you might save a lot of money using them. I own a a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and a Tokina 12-24mm f/4 for that very reason. I also like the Tamron because it's much smaller and lighter than the Canon equivalent.

So you have to consider all the alternatives and compromises and make your decision accordingly. But don't have any illusions about quality. With lenses, you do get more when you pay more. You will see a difference in photos taken with a kit lens and an equivalent pro lens - usually a big difference.

[drg]

so i have another question:

if I see that Canon, Tamron, and Sigma all sell a zoom lens of similar zoom range, why on earth should I buy the most expensive (Canon) version? Do I really care about the pretty red circle on the end of the lens? Does it really hurt my picture quality to buy a second hand Tamron lens?

That pretty red circle for the "Luxury" lens can make a huge difference. You must weigh the cost for what you are going to be doing with the lens.

There is also the question of IS (Image Stabilization) and your need for it. It adds cost, but it is a desirable and usefull feature.

I regular use both very expensive L series and Sigma lenses on various Canon DSLR's and though less frequently now for film. An example of where the Canon lens excels is that the more expensive 50mm lens (f/1.4 and f/1.2) focus almost instantly compared to the the Sigma 50mm f/2.8. However, the 50mm f/2.8 for the money is the best 1:1 macro lens on the market in its format. The Canon's are not macro. One type of tradeoff is speed versus a feature or functionality. The cheapest of the 50's is the f/1.8 which is perhaps the 'best' lens of the bunch. After all, you can buy 3 or 4 of them for what the cheapest of the others cost and it takes 'great' pictures.

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" IS is one of the best (sharpness, clarity, color rendition/accuracy, speed, durability) on the market in almost any size or by any manufacturer. It is worth the money. There are units that compete with it on certain features and definitly in cost, but overall it wins hands down. Yet for weight reasons I've been using the non-IS f/4 variety more recently. The non IS f/4 version is also a third the cost of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. The f/4 70-200mm IS falls in the middle of the price range.

An example of another lens issue is the 28-200mm lens by Canon and Sigma. Both are f/3.5-5.6, but one series from Sigma actually produced significantly better photos. It also was less expensive (though not significantly). Tamron now has a lens in this combined length that reportedly is better than either Canon's or Sigma. I haven't personally tested it.

For fixed focal length Macro lenses, my money is on the Sigma's. I have not only a 50, but a 105mm and 180mm in my arsenal and for a lot of work, they are demonstrably better. Last summer I tested Sigma's new 17-70mm Macro and it is a real winner regardless of cost. The 70mm f/2.8 is a lens I have used one time and hope to add to the arsenal this year.

Canon's "L" zoom are legendary with good reason for the images they produce. Sure you pay more, but you will see it over Canon's inexpensive zooms immediately. The durability and toughness of the 'L' is unequalled There are some lens from Canon that have 'quirks' that I won't go into in much detail here other than to say they are well noted/documented and minor research will help you decide if the issues affect your decision. One such lens, though a good one, is the 28-300 which is a 'push-pull' zoom that there are reports of it having more dirt and dust issues than similar units. I don't care for the combo but they do produce fine results. The wide range of focal lengths do make it a lens many will consider regardless of other faults.

I suppose the short answer to your question is, the "Luxury" or 'L' marked lens units from Canon are a cut above. There are 'specific' exceptions or variations from this but they are unusual. A second hand lens of any kind should be purchased only from a very reputable dealer and with some warranty.

A better lens on a Rebel body will produce far superior photographs to an average or bad lens on the most expensive 1D body.

Zooms are not created equal!

[redonnemoi]

hehehe thanks guys
but before i say that information, let me ask more questions: the guys at canon insist on fluorite lens elements, while Nikon insists on ED glass, while Tamron mentions nothing about what glass they use

why should i care about this information? does it really matter, when you can see the blades of grass on the meadow in all three lenses anyway?

also, i have seen a few reviews and they, for example, will photograph one thing with three lenses, and compare the pictures. I can't see any difference at all most of the time, and these guys are saying there is a difference. I'm only 21, I swear Im not going old and blind, whats the difference?

now: I will be the proud owner of a Canon Digital Rebel XTI. my baby is in the mail, I bought it along with lens and a whole slew of accessories for only 611 USD

[redonnemoi]

So you have to consider all the alternatives and compromises and make your decision accordingly. But don't have any illusions about quality. With lenses, you do get more when you pay more. You will see a difference in photos taken with a kit lens and an equivalent pro lens - usually a big difference.

thats delicious
i wanna see an example right now, show me the same picture shot with two different lens, one brand name and one third party, and tell me precisely, what are all the differences between the two pictures.

[Canuck935]

thats delicious
i wanna see an example right now, show me the same picture shot with two different lens, one brand name and one third party, and tell me precisely, what are all the differences between the two pictures.

Kit Lens:


Better Lens:


As you can see, the second example is sharper, has less fringing, and better contrast..

[redonnemoi]

Kit Lens:


Better Lens:


As you can see, the second example is sharper, has less fringing, and better contrast..

eeee niceeee
whats the name of these two lenses?

[Canuck935]

eeee niceeee
whats the name of these two lenses?

The Sony 18-70 kit lens and the Sony Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T* 16-80 lens.

These lenses are not compatible with the Canon system, but those examples are what came to mind when you asked to see comparison shots. I'm sure you can find similar comparisons for Canon mount lenses. I only chose the Sony example because that is what I shoot so I had already done the research.

Keep in mind that to notice such differences you often have to analyze the photo's at 100% crops. The examples I showed are from the Cameralabs website. They test camera's and lenses, and provide examples (such as the one I have shown) with full explanations so you know what you are looking for in the sample photos.

[freygr]

Just remember there is more to lenses than the resolution there is contrast and coatings. The kit lens with my camera has flare you would not believe in bright sun without out its lens shade! Look at this link: http://www.photozone.de/

With most lenses have 5 to 7 groups the coatings become very important. With out the coatings the lenses would have flare and low contrast. The resolution of the lens when installing on a digital camera also has a bearing. The same lens on a 3 or 4 mega pixel camera may be unacceptable on a 8 mega pixel camera but just fine on a full frame 8 mega pixel camera.

On film cameras it was easy to tell but with digital the sensor acts like a low pass filter. But the sensors are becoming close to the high speed film resolutions and it is changing.

[redonnemoi]

can somebody explain me what this fluorite, ED glass, ... business is?

does it really improve the photograph?

also, i wanna see a photo taken by a Canon luxury lens, and compare it to a photo of the same thing, taken by a Tamron/Sigma of similar focal length range.

[AgingEyes]

can somebody explain me what this fluorite, ED glass, ... business is?

does it really improve the photograph?

also, i wanna see a photo taken by a Canon luxury lens, and compare it to a photo of the same thing, taken by a Tamron/Sigma of similar focal length range.

Thing is, some of the Tamron, Sigmal lens are comparable to those from Nikon or Canon, quality-wise. For example, Tamron has a 17-50 f2.8 and Nikon has its own 17-55 f2.8. You can buy two of the formers and then some for the price of one Nikon 17-55. If you really have to look, put two photos side by side, then perhaps you could find some difference in image quality between them. Or you may not. Looking at each photo on its own, you may find both looks fine. So, sometimes, the difference is not really that big for some of the lenses.

The other thing you should consider is: outside the labs, in real world photography, or for most of the photos that you'll be taking, will you be able to see any differences?

Usually though, the built quality of those pro lenses is better.

[AgingEyes]

Here's a link you may find interesting:

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/

[redonnemoi]

people say that L lense are built better. in which specific way(s) are (is) L lenses built better? can they withstand a 25 foot drop without cracking, but a Tamron lens cannot?

[redonnemoi]

does anyone know the answer to this?
thanks again!

[jkriminger]

You can try looking at what our people are shooting in the Photo Gallery. Case in point..I have seen terrific shots with the sigma 10-20mm ..mostly landscape ,from the likes of starriderrick and others and would not hesitate to pick one up. Its on my short list..either that or the tokina 12-24mm...oye

[redonnemoi]

i would specifically like to know, in which ways are L lenses more durable than third part lenses... please explain this to me thanks
can you drop a L lens and expect it to not shatter? is this what you mean?