Quote:
Originally Posted by gordon g
Although some of what you pay for may be the brand name or a white finish. I use mainly sigma EX lenses, which are substantially cheaper than the canon L equivalents, and where I have done head-to-head comparisons, there has been very little if any difference in image quality. (This was between the 70-200 f2.8 models in the two ranges)
I actually prefer my sigma 28-70 over my canon 24-105L when used over the 28-70 range.
|
I used to think that the Sigma EX lenses were right up there with the Canon L's, I owned a 500 f4.5, a 100-300 f4 and a 70-200 f2.8. I got the chance to upgrade my 500 to the Canon (as you know). Initially I didn't think there was much in it, but once I got to grips with the Canon I started to see why it costs so much more. The IQ is noticebly better and it performs better in really testing conditions, in good light there's not much between them.
I then tested my 70-200 f2.8 against the Canon 70-200 f4 and far prefered the Canon - images are that bit sharper and the colours are richer. After that I realised that while cheaper lenses can do the job there really is an advantage to top end glass.
As for the 18-55 kit lens vs the 17-40 f4, there is a world of difference between them - sure both can take got photos, but the 17-40 will do so more consistently, especially when conditions are less than ideal.