Need advise on buying a new Lense

[goofydiz]

I am looking to replace a 28-200 Sigma lense for my Digital Canon Rebel. The salesman at the camera shop is telling me about a "Pro Master" 28-200 lense which has a lifetime warranty. I was trying to do a little research on the subject but can't find too many people that sell it. I was basically looking at camera stores featured in my "Outdoor Photographer Magazine". Has anyone out there heard of this brand or had any experience with it? I really liked my Sigma - but it just broke right after 1 year without any reason and I'm just not sure if I want to invest money on the same brand again after the experience I had.

 

[jann1033]

i have an older promaster 100-300 lens for my film rebel...it's OK but i wouldn't buy it for a walk around type lens...they are kind of cheapy, the one i have is usable but not good. i think promaster, phoenix, and a couple other brands are the same manufacturer and i have a phoenix that works good( macro) but it looks like it came out of a toy camera kit and i don't know how durable it will be.( but it was $145 for a macro lens, cheaper or the same price as an autofocus extension tube kit)

just my totally personal experience and not any way statistically proven but learn from my mistakes if you want ...i always bought the most "affordable lens"( in other words, cheapest) i could that i thought would meet my purpose( IE sigma, etc) and i felt like i was happy enough with them but never really thrilled with my pictures*. then i got a canon 28-135 IS which isn't even rated that great as far as canon lenses go but i can't believe the difference. When i opened it i felt like it was a real lens and not some hunk of plastic. i know some off brand lenses are rated well but I'll never buy another sigma again. mine just never worked really well and it was just frustrating. so my new motto is wait till i can afford a good lens before i jump and buy a cheaper inferior lens. the lenses have the potential of out living the camera body and imo are worth spending a little more for( not $35,000 more but a couple hundred )
for a specialty lens( macro or something) that is more of an occasional use lens, an off brand like promaster might be better than nothing if it's rated well but not for a day to day lens...i

I know lots love sigma 18-125 but I've seen reviews great and horrendous for it and didn't want to chance it( plus wanted IS) when i could get my 28-135 for (i think it was $405 when i bought so) about $140 more plus it included the is.

the conclusion of this long winded post being..if you do decide to go off brand( & against my totally worthless advice ) only do it sigma or tamron but not promaster and the promaster family for every day use.

* disclaimor...not saying i'm totally thrilled with them now, just less "un"thrilled

 

[mabas9395]

Buying lenses is like buying shoes, you get what you pay for.

But an SLR camera is really part of a larger photographic system (body, lens, flash, memory card, etc) and that system is only going to be as good as your weakest link. So it doesn't make sense to spend $800 on a camera body and then put cheap lenses on it. You generally can't go wrong with buying the best you can affort, and that usually means Canon brand lenses. But there are some third party lenses that do quite well for a lower price. Those would be the Sigma, Tamaron and some of the Tokina lenses.

If you go for a cheaper brand lens, you've eliminated half of the reasons why you got an SLR in the first place.

 

[Master Mason]

I have the Sigma 18-125 that I use for a walk around lens... So far I have been very happy with it.... but I fear I am about to be spoiled next week when my first L glass arrives....

But I also don't think that any of my lenses are a bad investment, as when I decide to upgrade at some point in the future, I will be able to pass down my current body and have a lens or 2 that would be availible for use on it...

 

[MarkBarbieri]

If your problem with Sigma is their quality, buying a brand with a worse reputation seems a bit backwards.

 

[handicap18]

I concur with the others. Especially what Jan said, however, its almost certain that the lens will out last the body (though either could go at any time). Nikon and Canon seem to upgrade camara bodies a lot more frequently than lenses. If you buy a lens now, for the most part its not going to be obsolete in a few years. Lenses also hold their value a lot better than bodies will over time (especially good lenses) Its better to put a great lens on a good camera than a good lens on a great camera. The lens is the bridge between your subject and your camera.

 

[PoohJen]

aw crap. all you guys are buying canon and L glass, while I'm still waiting for my Sigma 70-300 APO to arrive.

I've enjoyed my Sigma 18 - 125, but is it a case of blissful ignorance, not having experienced the Canon brand of lenses? I had tried a friends Canon 70-300 (not IS; maybe it was 75-300) and didn't see any noticeable difference than with my sigma; I'll go study those pics again, as I need a new topic to obsess about now that my Disney cruise has passed...

 

[goofydiz]

Thanks for all the replies. They are all so helpful! I will steer clear of the ProMaster. Now I just need to decide if I'll buy another Sigma. I have a Canon 18-55 that came with the camera body and really don't find much difference between the quality of the Sigma and Canon pictures. My only concern is the life quality of the lense itself. I hear some say that the lense should out live the body, but that wasn't the case with my last Sigma lense. It lasted 1 year and 2 months, right when it was out of warranty (My usual luck). Was this just a freak of nature that it broke or is this common with a Sigma? I found a Sigma 28-300 that I am interest in - but my concern is spending money on something that won't last. Should I look into a Tamron instead of a Sigma? I just can't afford the Canon - it would cost me $2,000 for the same lense that would cost about $250 in Sigma.

 

[majimikate]

Don't compare the Rebel kit lens with other Canon lenses...I have that kit lens and it is the one that NEVER comes out of my camera bag. I also have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 (GREAT lens, and very inexpensive) and a Canon 70-300mm with IS. I love both of the other lenses and would probably be reluctant to buy something other than Canon, but I have heard good things about the "Kelly" lens here on this board and would probably buy that if I was to buy anything else. (The Kelly is a Sigma) I usually read user ratings on amazon (in addition to here )to get an idea of what people think about a lens as well, it turned me right off a lens I was thinking about buying a couple of weeks ago.

But anyway, my point, try a few other Canon lenses before assuming there is no difference. And if you get your hands on an L glass, forget it, you'll never want to go back!!!

Good luck!!
Chris

 

[jann1033]

to add to my 3 page post above....

the problem i had with sigma that really ticked me off was even more the quality of the pics( which could differ considerably due to the lens) was the fact it hunted constantly, in and out in and out, till i was ready to scream and of course sometimes till it was to late to take any shot if the object was say a bird or bug. it was bad enough with my film rebel, when i got it rechipped for the digital it was so bad i wanted to throw the whole system at the nearest tree quite frequently( not conducive to a fun day of taking pictures). i have seen others post about similar annoyances with canon/sigma and therefore i wonder about the electronic compatibility...you might be able to try before you buy and have better success with that aspect but it just makes it easier for me to go the other way( canon)

so that plus the pic. quality( which could have been improved by a better sigma lens too in all fairness i guess) made me a "canon girl" ... as long as i have a canon camera

 

[Master Mason]

made me a "canon girl" ... as long as i have a canon camera

They kind of suck you in this way.. pretty soon you have so much invested in things other than the body that you can't afford to move away from the brand....

 

[terryX]

I have to add my recommendations for this "cheap" 50mm f/1.8 Canon lens. I took some great fireworks shots at Disneyland. Everyone at work thought I downloaded the pictures as Desktops!! When I told them the cost of the lens they were shocked! ( $79). I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT. Great for dark shots if you have a tripod.

Terry

 

[Metallicat]

Thats it. I'm going to have to order the 50mm lens.

I just recently got the Canon 28-135 IS lens, and so far I'm not that impressed. (maybe I'm doing something wrong? ) I cannot tell one bit of difference in my pictures than with the kit lens. it is a good solid sturdy lens, but the pictures are just so-so. I wish I had waited and spent more (way more) for the Canon 10mm. the one that I have really been wanting.
I also have the Canon 100mm Macro lens and LOVE it. of course its for close ups like flowers and bugs and great for portraits, but it really takes a super duper clear picture if anyone is thinking of adding a Macro lens to their collection.

DD has the Canon 17-40 L lens and it takes a beautifull picture. plus one of the white L zoom lens that really gets in close on birds and stuff. its kinda funny, having two different L lenses, she is ALWAYS borrowing my Macro lens.

 

[jann1033]

...
I just recently got the Canon 28-135 IS lens, and so far I'm not that impressed. (maybe I'm doing something wrong? ) I cannot tell one bit of difference in my pictures than with the kit lens. it is a good solid sturdy lens, but the pictures are just so-so. I wish I had waited and spent more (way more) for the Canon 10mm. the one that I have really been wanting.
I also have the Canon 100mm Macro lens and LOVE it. of course its for close ups like flowers and bugs and great for portraits, but it really takes a super duper clear picture if anyone is thinking of adding a Macro lens to their collection.

...:

an interesting experiment...one of these is kit, one is 28-135, same everything except mm( 18vs 28) nothing done but cropped...anyone care to guess which is which just by sharpness ( no peeking) sorry about the different angle but wasn't planning on using them for this

 

[handicap18]

Wow there is a difference. I wont necessarily say a big difference, but definatly one that you can see. I cheated and looked at the exif, but only after I guessed.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Keep in mind that Sigma, like Canon and Nikon, has several different quality levels for their lenses. Their cheap low-end consumer zooms, like Canon's and Nikon's, are cheaply built. Generally speaking, you get what you pay for.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

There is no doubt that the lenses are different quality levels, however, it's not really fair to compare one at 28mm and the other at 18mm. In my experience the further a lens gets from about 50mm, the more difficult it is to get a really sharp picture. That's why the 50mm f1.8 gets such great shots from such a cheap lens and the really good long lenses and wide lenses cost so darned much money.

 

[fitzperry]

Wow there is a difference. I wont necessarily say a big difference, but definatly one that you can see. I cheated and looked at the exif, but only after I guessed.

Stupid question, but how do you look at the exif data on a photo posted here? When I right click on the image and click on properties all I get is the link to jann's photobucket account and the image size, etc.

 

[0bli0]

my most expensive lens is a Sigma (more ex than any of my 'L' lenses). i have been very fortunate with all of my lenses - many people seem to have QC issues with backfocus, softness, etc.

i did have to have my Sigma 50-500 fixed twice - a screw holding the mount came undone and the second time it actually elongated the screw hole. this was largely due to me spending so much time shooting with a monopod, holding the camera body in my right hand and resting my left hand on the lens for stability (fulcrum effect on the mount).

generally speaking, prime lenses (non-zooms) are going to be noticeably sharper at the same price point than zooms will be. the 50 1.8 is a fantastic lens, but obviously you need to use it differently than a walk around lens. i personally love primes for portraits and street shooting, and it really gets you thinking more about composition.

as has been pointed out several times, a lens is going to generally outlast the body. i have the 80-200L which Canon doesn't make anymore and it's served me well for many years. you can also sell/ebay lenses and usually get a relatively good return on your investment. there are quite a few good lenses which aren't terribly expensive. there are lots of boards around so you can find decent feedback on lenses for pretty much all makes.

 

[Metallicat]

an interesting experiment...one of these is kit, one is 28-135, same everything except mm( 18vs 28) nothing done but cropped...anyone care to guess which is which just by sharpness ( no peeking) sorry about the different angle but wasn't planning on using them for this

To be perfectly honest, I can't tell much of a difference except that the POV (point of view) and lighting is a little different. as for clarity, I'm just not seeing it. but then again, I'm 45 yrs old and haven't had my eyes checked in awhile. nah seriously, the 28-135 IS has certainly got to be the better lens. no doubt. I'm not arguing with ya there, (it should be for the price) it's just that I was expecting sharper picture than what I am getting. I'm no expert by any means, and am still learning how to use my Rebel, but I can tell a HUGE difference in the 17-40 L and also the Macro lens, (compared to the kit lens) but the 28-135 IS is not winning me over so far. in fact, I may see if I can return it since I haven't had it but a couple of weeks. I would just as soon use my kit lens and keep my $400.

p.s. thanks for posting the pictures but which lens too which picture?