Sigma? or other.....

[Dropy]

Ok, hi folks i am new. I shoot canon 30D, 17-85 af lense and a 70-300 af. I know i need a better lense for close up stuff, a wideangle lense would rock, a fisheye lense for some of those upclose nature shots and i want a bigger piece of long range glass too.

My question is what off brands are worth there money? i have been told to look at sigma lenses. Met a nikon user on the boat on my alaska trip. He used a couple of Sigma lenses 500+ in size and he loved them. Half the price of canon makes me happy. But almost nearly the same quality? Worth the dollars?

Maybe this thread already exisits, i aint found it yet if it has.

Other companies making good glass also?

[savona]

I have owned a couple sigma lenses and I was happy with them all. I had a "BIG MA" which is the Sigma 50-500mm, great lens but its a tank to carry and I did use the low end of that much. I also owned a sigma 70-200 which was awesome, never had a problem with it.

Tamron also makes some good lenses. I had a 28-75 2.8 which I actually like better than my canon 24-70 2.8 L. The lens was a lot lighter, which made it easier to carry. It was also very sharp.

Tokina also makes a couple good lenses... I have never owned one, but I know people who have and they are all happy with them.

The only complaint I have had about non-canon lenses is the focusing system is a little slower than a canon lens. All in all I can say the Sigma, and Tamron lenses I have owned performed very nicely.

Oh, one more point... I would stick with the higher end sigma and tamron stuff... I think for Sigma the DG series is their better lenses, and for Tamron is the XR... I can be wrong about that, maybe someone else can spread more light on that subject.

[katescape]

I used to have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 ... it was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. I also owned a Tokina 12-24 and it was also very sharp, in fact I liked it better than the Canon 10-22.

[Adaptive]

I have owned a couple sigma lenses and I was happy with them all. I had a "BIG MA" which is the Sigma 50-500mm, great lens but its a tank to carry and I did use the low end of that much. I also owned a sigma 70-200 which was awesome, never had a problem with it.

Tamron also makes some good lenses. I had a 28-75 2.8 which I actually like better than my canon 24-70 2.8 L. The lens was a lot lighter, which made it easier to carry. It was also very sharp.

Tokina also makes a couple good lenses... I have never owned one, but I know people who have and they are all happy with them.

The only complaint I have had about non-canon lenses is the focusing system is a little slower than a canon lens. All in all I can say the Sigma, and Tamron lenses I have owned performed very nicely.

Oh, one more point... I would stick with the higher end sigma and tamron stuff... I think for Sigma the DG series is their better lenses, and for Tamron is the XR... I can be wrong about that, maybe someone else can spread more light on that subject.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Only sigma lens I have ever owned is the 8mm fisheye.
I love the lens, too bad canon doesn't make an equivalent lens.

The 8mm fish isn't super sharp, actually it's not very sharp at all.
Sadly it's the worst lens I own as far as speed and sharpness.
But fortunately people don't love fisheye shots for their sharpness.

[Dropy]

Ok, much thankiness for all the infos here. So it is done, Sigma lense are win. The Sigma lenses i been looking at are about 2/3 the price of the same Canon...so this is good. Now to get back to work. Darn this recession.....must...have.....more...glass!!!