Lens question

[LeVeL]

I'm a total n00b when it comes to SLRs and I have a question about lenses. I can't figure out why one costs more than another even though they seem pretty much the same and, in some cases, even come from the same manufacturer. I can see why a Canon lens would be more expensive than an identical Tamron, for example, but when there are similar lenses made by the same company... To make this a little easier, let's look at these lenses (there are other much more expensive ones that appear to be similar but I'm looking at what's within my budget):

1) Tamron


2) Sigma


3) Canon


4) Canon

(those two canons, 3 and 4, seem identical except that the imported one is $10 cheaper... does that even matter?)

5) Tamron


6) Canon

[markryder]

The short answer: it's the same with lenses as with everything else in this world -> you get what you pay for.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I'd only bother looking at the last two. At that price point, there's going to be little difference between lenses.

[mgkdk]

Originally Posted by LeVeL

(those two canons, 3 and 4, seem identical except that the imported one is $10 cheaper... does that even matter?)

Try reading what it says on bhphotovideo.com about us/imported, it'll explain it for you.

[jayhawk]

If you want a excellent alternative to your OEM lens, do Sigma.

[LeVeL]

I'm getting a DSLR in a few weeks I think... and just trying to figure out what lens to get (kit will come with a canon 18-55)

[jayhawk]

I have a Nikon that came with a 18-55mm lens, it is pretty versatile, you'll be surprised. If you look at the photo a day thread, I would say 90% of my pictures there were taken with the 18-55mm lens. At least with the Nikon, I can be zoomed to 55mm and be 3 inches from the subject...I love that!

I guess it depends what you want to do in the future; you can get a 75-300mm lens, but it will worthless for everyday use, and you better have a sturdy tripod, also! Plus, even the Canon one's are pretty cheap, I suspect that something was sacrificed to make it so.

I would avoid the Tamrons, I have heard the lens distortion is unacceptable.

[jayhawk]

I just want to add this also: Yesterday I was at Road America, and for the most part I used my 55-200mm lens, that has vibration reduction; I bought it new for $220, and during the race I never needed to zoom past 135mm. Think on that before you spend money on a lens that goes to 300mm.

Pictures here.

[IceBone]

If it helps, I was considering the Sigma 70-300 APO, but I'll rather save up for the bigger, better 70-200 f/2.8.

And to counter Jayhawk, my sigma 17-70 focuses at 1mm from the glass at 70mm focal distance.

[jayhawk]

Yeah, I am very much considering that 17-70, that will help tremendously for my nature photos.

[IceBone]

It's a brilliant lens! I love it to bits. The HSM is really quick to focus too. And f/2.8 at 17mm ready does make a difference in low light.

[Cobol74]

^ Yep on my old Pentax P30 SLR I got a Tamron - did not like it at all - I'd avoid.

/EDIT Blimey you chaps post quickly!

[LeVeL]

I'll be doing a lot of motorsport shooting and at autocross or rallycross events I often need to zoom in on a car 500' away. Like I said, I'm really really new to DSLRs, so I have no idea whether a 200mm lens would work fine for that.

Oh, and I realize that a 75-300 would be useless for everyday photography.