Which Lens is best quality? (Page 2): My experience is that the Nikon and Canon high end lenses, almost always out perform the third party lenses.

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

My experience is that the Nikon and Canon high end lenses, almost always out perform the third party lenses.

CanonJC

bvargas wrote:

Which of the following lenses would you recommend based on Quality, Sharpness? Camera to be used on Canon 7D.
WOULD LIKE TO BE USED FOR INTERIORS IN HDR.

SIGMA 10-20mm 3.5 FIXED PRICE $649
TAMRON 10-24mm 3.5-4.5 PRICE $449
TOKINA 11-16mm 2.8 FIXED PRICE $659
CANON 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 PRICE $799

THANKS BV

Friend of mine has Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 on his Canon T3i. Whoa! I have ever seen his pictures. All of them have excellent sharp photos. It is an excellent in low light too. Tokina lens
made in Japan.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

bvargas wrote:

Which of the following lenses would you recommend based on Quality, Sharpness? Camera to be used on Canon 7D.
WOULD LIKE TO BE USED FOR INTERIORS IN HDR.

SIGMA 10-20mm 3.5 FIXED PRICE $649
TAMRON 10-24mm 3.5-4.5 PRICE $449
TOKINA 11-16mm 2.8 FIXED PRICE $659
CANON 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 PRICE $799

THANKS BV

I haven't use all of these lenses, but I have used the Sigma and the Canon. For me, the Canon outperforms the Sigma, but it's a close call.

bvargas Loc: Palm Harbor, Florida

Remember, this Canon lens is not their high-end "L" lens.
I talked to B&H Photo yesterday and asked their Pro Dept. and they said that this Canon 10-22mm Lens, was garbage.
I could not believe that they said that. BV

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

bvargas wrote:

Remember, this Canon lens is not their high-end "L" lens.
I talked to B&H Photo yesterday and asked their Pro Dept. and they said that this Canon 10-22mm Lens, was garbage.
I could not believe that they said that. BV

Maybe a Nikon rep was there, and he answered the phone.

Ken thinks "its a great lens." http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

MtnMan Loc: ID

Bjor wrote:

I also have the TOKINA 11-16mm 2.8 the lens is very sharp have it for about a year. With Nikons lens will only auto focus on body's with a internal focusing motors. Not sure if it's the same with canons.

Thanks for pointing that out. It wasn't clear in many places; e.g. Adorama only says it won't work on a D40. You have to go into the user comments to get verificatioon of your point...and some users incorrectly claim it will work on a D5100.

While I understand autofocus isn't critical for this type lens I wouldn't spend the kind of money they want for one that doesn't work on my D5100.

It is coming off my Amazon wish list.

It may go back on when they update it or I move on to another body.

Alas the price of the Nikon 12-24 is out of hand.

I guess if I get itchy for the wide angle I'd reconsider the Sigma. Although it doesn't get the rave reviews of the Tokina it doesn't get the razzes of the Tamron and I am very happy with my Sigma 150-500.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

bvargas wrote:

Remember, this Canon lens is not their high-end "L" lens.
I talked to B&H Photo yesterday and asked their Pro Dept. and they said that this Canon 10-22mm Lens, was garbage.
I could not believe that they said that. BV

One man's junk is another man's treasure. For those who believe the Pro Dept at B&H, I will gladly take their Canon 10-22 lens from them. :-)

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

I use a Canon 17-40 f/4 for inside shooting of office spaces and I get so many comments from the recipients that the quality of my pics are so good they want to send me to do all of their shooting.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

BigBear wrote:

I use a Canon 17-40 f/4 for inside shooting of office spaces and I get so many comments from the recipients that the quality of my pics are so good they want to send me to do all of their shooting.

I have this lens as well, and I agree with you. In fact, I think it is better than the more expensive 16-35 f/2.8L. Don't know about the new 16-35 f/2.8L II though...

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

mdorn wrote:

BigBear wrote:

I use a Canon 17-40 f/4 for inside shooting of office spaces and I get so many comments from the recipients that the quality of my pics are so good they want to send me to do all of their shooting.

I have this lens as well, and I agree with you. In fact, I think it is better than the more expensive 16-35 f/2.8L. Don't know about the new 16-35 f/2.8L II though...

My wife really likes it too. She got my 100-400 because it wouldn't fit in my pocket like the 17-40. ;-)

cetw Loc: Miami FL

I just purchased the TOKINA 11-16, that got my vote because of reviews and I wanted 2.8 for night time sky. Have only played a few times with it, seems good to me. Is sharp. I have the 40D but waiting to see if 7D upgrades later this yr, then we will see....