whichlens.com - Lens Reviews

It's been over a year since I last updated this site and Jon and I have been beavering away on various other projects. Still, our love for photography and its various technicalities and equipments have never wavered and this site will be evolving into a more blog-like format with a more personal touch rather than just objective lens discussions.

We had a large 10 lens roundup planned and actually shot all of the necessary crops (that's over 1,200 photos!) but it just became a nightmare trying to process and formally present them all given our current non-Whichlens time constraints. Also, since the review does not cover the new fast wide zooms such as the Cosina, Tamron and Sigma 16-50, 17-55 etc it is a little outdated anyway. We thought these observations might be interesting to the general public, so up they go.

We reviewed:

Canon 17-85 IS
Canon 18-55
Canon 24-85
Canon 28-135 IS
Sigma 18-50
Sigma 18-125
Sigma 18-200
Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro
Tamron 28-75
Tamron 18-200

Sharpness

In terms of sharpness, I would rank the lenses as (from highest to lowest)

1st tier - Canon 28-135 IS, Sigma 24-70, Tamron 28-75
2nd tier - Canon 17-85, Canon 24-85, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 18-50
3rd tier - Canon 18-55, Sigma 18-200, Tamron 18-200

To be honest, none of these lenses were unacceptable in terms of sharpness. Stopped down, they were all pretty good.

Canon 17-85 IS - It's quite soft in the corners and there's a fair amount of chromatic aberration from 17-35mm. It gets a lot better after that and is a very competent lens from 35-85.

Canon 18-55 - This is the kit lens that comes with the Canon 350D. It really has no redeeming features other than being small and light. Stopped down, its performance is ok so you could always keep it for use as an 18mm lens in a pinch.

Canon 24-85 - Above average sharpness, especially in the corners. It's quite an old design, probably the oldest of this group. Stopped down, it's pretty good, no surpises either positive or negative.

Canon 28-135 - Good performance at all apertures and focal lengths. Optically, it really can't be faulted. It's the best of the Canons tested in the roundup.

Sigma 18-50 - Despite a lot of positive comments online, I found this lens a little disappointing wide open. It was sharp at f/4 and above but nowhere near as sharp as the Tamron 28-75 2.8 at 2.8. 18mm was also quite soft though things improved markedly by 24mm. Also, there was significant vignetting at 18mm though that tends to be the case with fast/wide lenses.

Sigma 18-125 - A surprisingly good performer, especially given its price. Reasonably sharp wide open and sharper at 125mm than the superzooms at 125mm.

Sigma 24-70 - Physically huge but excellent results. Optically the best lens overall in the roundup. I had heard a lot of negative comments about the older versions of this lens (distinguished by the lack of a MACRO designation in the name) but this lens did not disappoint.

Tamron 18-200 and Sigma 18-200 - Very similar results though the Tamron was slightly better. Not as good as the 18-125 at like focal lengths though. Design compromises probably had to be made to achieve such a wide focal range.

Tamron 28-75 - Good sharpness wide open, no surprises stopped down, just sharp images.

Handling & Ergonomics

In terms of portability and usage, I would rank the lenses (from highest to lowest)

1st tier - Canon 24-85, Sigma 18-125
2nd tier - Canon 18-55, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 28-75, Tamron 18-200
3rd tier - Canon 17-85, Canon 28-135 IS, Sigma 18-200, Sigma 24-70

Canon 17-85 IS - Very similar in size and weight to its older 28-135 IS cousin. Thankfully, the build quality has not worsened and the USM motor is still there.

Canon 18-55 - It's light and compact, a big plus, but on the other hand, it feels very cheap and it's not internal focussing (i.e. the lens extends slightly).

Canon 24-85 - I used to use a Canon 24-85 as my main lens until I switched to prime lenses. The USM motor in the Canon 24-85 makes it a real pleasure to use. Build quality was acceptable though nothing stellar.

Canon 28-135 IS - The second largest, heaviest in the roundup. It is well built and has a USM motor so focus is silent and fairly zippy. It has image stabilisation as well so despite the size and weight, it is also has the most features of all the lenses in the roundup.

Sigma 18-50 - The Sigma 18-50 is designated as an EX series lens, their high-end range. The build quality is good and the motor is a lot less whiny. The 18-50 is the most compact of the 2nd tier lenses.

Sigma 18-125 - The motor on the Sigma 18-125 is noisy. It has a very high pitch whine but at least it is quick. Quicker than its 18-200 cousin for sure. The build quality is good especially for the price.

Sigma 18-200 - The Sigma well built though not quite as nice as the EX lenses (the 18-50 and the 24-70). It has a similarly noisy motor to its 18-125 brother.

Sigma 24-70 - This is another Sigma EX lens and as such, is built like a tank. While this lens is optically excellent, I don't think I'd be willing to lug it around. It has the dubious honour of being the biggest and heaviest lens in the group and uses 77mm filters. On top of that, the motor makes an awful grinding noise though it is quick. The auto focus/manual focus toggle method is a bit weird too, involving lots of pushing and pulling.

Tamron 18-200 - This lens is big but light, giving it a plasticky feel. The lens is fit together well but it doesn't feel as substantial as the Sigma 18-200. The motor is lower pitched than the Sigma which makes me perceive it as less noisy. AF speed is average.

Tamron 28-75 - Good build and reasonable size. The autofocus is a little slower than the competition but at least it is relatively quiet and it very rarely hunts for focus. Some people do use it as a main lens though 28mm is not wide enough for me.

Concluding Comments

With the exception of maybe the Canon 18-55, there were no real lemons in this roundup. The Sigma 18-50 was a little disappointing given that it's an EX lens. I was hoping since it's not a huge lens, you could arguably call it an 18mm f2.8 prime lens which just happens to zoom as well. However, the mediocre performance wide open kills it for me. Nonetheless, stopped down it performs admirably. If you really need a fast, wide zoom lens, there are new lenses that have come out in the last few months which may be more suitable. I have listed them in the "Other Alternatives" section of the article.

The Canon 17-85 optically isn't as nice as its older 28-135 cousin because of the softness at 17-35mm. There is a lot more chromatic aberration as well. Of course, the Canon 28-135 doesn't even reach 17mm so it's not exactly a fair comparison but I think if I had to have a wide/long zoom, I'd just go with the Sigma 18-125 instead.

The Sigma 24-70 is a good choice if you can manage the heft of the thing. For those using it in environments where the camera would be on a tripod most of the time and motor noise is not an issue, then it does deserve a recommendation based on its excellent results.

In the world of lenses, the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 28-135 are old stalwarts. This was the first time I've been able to put the two side by side and compare them and really, there were no surprises. Both excellent buys.

The Sigma 18-125 is the pleasant surprise of the roundup. It's cheap, light and optically good. It's a shame the motor is so noisy, but if you can live with it, it's a good lens and especially good for beginners trying to find their way around preferred focal lengths.

Of the superzooms, the Tamron pips the Sigma to the post because of its slightly quieter motor and slightly better optical performance. However, if you want a superzoom and price is no object, really you should be buying a Nikon 18-200 VR on a D200 body. With that combo you get weather sealing, a USM-style motor, vibration reduction (image stabilisation) and excellent optics.

Final Recommendations

If you skipped this whole article to just read this last bit, then buy:

If you are on a budget - Sigma 18-125mm
If you need a fast lens - Tamron 28-75mm
If you need longer reach in one lens - Canon 28-135 or Tamron 18-200

Other Alternatives

As I said earlier in the article, a lot of new lenses have hit the market since. The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 has gotten a warm reception and may be a viable alternative to the Sigma 18-125 as a starter lens. Having a fast 2.8 aperture is most handy. There is also the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Tokina 16-50mm f2.8 and Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS which from the samples I've seen would all be first tier lenses in their own right. Among this new group, I'd probably pick the Tokina 16-50mm f2.8 because of the wider 16mm focal length.

Support the site and buy from Amazon!