Do it all / walk about lens for canon

[jimmy156]

Hi all, looking for some info on some lenses. I bought my camera (50d) body only, and bought a 50mm 1.8 and sigma 120-400 lens, as i mainly do bird / wildlife photography, and thought the 50mm would be a good, cheap was to do general purpose shots (which it is).

However i have nothing wide to do lanscapes/street photography/indoor stuff that doesent end up as just head shots. 50mm is frustratingly long on a crop body sometimes!

So im looking at the Canon 17-85 4-5.6 IS USM lens, £379. The Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 OS HSM Macro, £328. The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro Lens, £316. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF £335, or Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di £359

Has anyone got any experience of these lenses? or any informed opinions? Im tempted by the sigma's, as they have the added usefullness of close focus. I'm not fussed either way about IS really.

Thanks guys, James

[nogsk]

Hi, a little more money than you've said, but have a look at the Canon 24 - 105L - new, unboxed £700 ish or s/h around £500? Covers most bases and is a reliable piece of kit, that'll match the Camera well.

[Dogsey]

nogsk said:

Hi, a little more money than you've said, but have a look at the Canon 24 - 105L - new, unboxed £700 ish or s/h around £500? Covers most bases and is a reliable piece of kit, that'll match the Camera well.

Cheapest 24-105L on the market seems to be £795, so it's not exactly a little more money . I thought about suggesting the 15-85mm IS, but at nearly £550 even that's not in the same league price wise as the OP's suggestions, although it's the only one in this zoom range I could personally recommend as it's the only one I've tried (and indeed bought).

The Canon 17-85mm IS seems to only be rated as an ok-ish lens by people who've used them, I would think that any of the f2.8 lenses mentioned will provide better IQ, the Tamron 17-50 in particular seems to get some very good reviews ( here for example).

[TheGreatSoprendo]

I had a similar conundrum recently when I was looking for an upgrade to the 18-55mm kit lens for my 400D, and considered most of the lenses you list here. I was after better IQ, somehting a little faster and also more reach at the long end.

I ended up going for the Sigma 17-70 which seemed to fit the bill nicely, and I haven't been disappointed. The build quality is very impressive (although I only has the kit lens and the 50mm 1.8 to compare to, neither of which is noted for build quality!) and the zoom and focus are smooth making it pleasant to use. I got mine from Clifton Cameras in Bristol for £315 which I think is great value and was the best price around at the time.

I've got a couple of magazines in the house with reviews of this lens and also the Tamron, which I can dig out if you like?

Edited by TheGreatSoprendo on Wednesday 26th May 20:45

[S47]

EFS 18-55 IS 'kit lens' ~ £55 on ebay
An awesome piece of glass for the ridiculously low asking price.
Why buy anything else

[jimmy156]

Thanks for the replies guys,

Unforntunaly Canon L stuff is out of my price range, if i was going to spend money on L glass i's have bought the 400mm 5.6

The 18-55 canon lens is just the kit lens from the entry level SLR's isnt it? I was under the impression its not the best for quality.

The Tamrons/sigma's seem to offer better VFM, and reviews seem okay too. Thanks Dogsey for that link i will have a read.

Thanks Thegreatsoprando, would be good to read the reviews but you're a little way away from me, and i dont suppose you feel like typing them up onto here . If you have time you could let me know the jist of the reviews, that would be great!

[4hero]

Ken Rockwell said:

EFS 18-55 IS 'kit lens' ~ £55 on ebay
An awesome piece of glass for the ridiculously low asking price.
Why buy anything else

Ken knows, listen and obey

[TheGreatSoprendo]

jimmy156 said:

would be good to read the reviews but you're a little way away from me, and i dont suppose you feel like typing them up onto here . If you have time you could let me know the jist of the reviews, that would be great!

Yeah sure. Wasn't planning on typing up the whole thing, but happy to post a brief summary.

[Gemm]

jimmy156 said:

The 18-55 canon lens is just the kit lens from the entry level SLR's isnt it? I was under the impression its not the best for quality.

Yes, it's just the kit lens but it's totally capable of producing great images. In the end, it's really up to the photographers. I've seen better images taken with 18-55 than with L lenses. Many people totally disregard its capability as soon as they hear 'kit lens' just because they read the bad reviews on the net. Who knows what % of the bad reviews are due to poor users.

[ofcorsa]

I bought the canon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5


I do mainly portraint stuff,just of friends at parties and it copes well except in really poor light.

I have examples on flickr but I'm struggling with formatting links at the moment

[GreigM]

Dogsey said:

the Tamron 17-50 in particular seems to get some very good reviews ( here for example).

I have the tamron and to me it seems very good, I chose it over the canon offerings as my "walk around"

[Mojocvh]

GreigM said:

Dogsey said:

the Tamron 17-50 in particular seems to get some very good reviews ( here for example).

I have the tamron and to me it seems very good, I chose it over the canon offerings as my "walk around"

I went for the sigma 17-70-2.8 after going through dozens of reviews, horses for courses....

[jimmy156]

ofcorsa said:

I bought the canon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5


I do mainly portraint stuff,just of friends at parties and it copes well except in really poor light.

I have examples on flickr but I'm struggling with formatting links at the moment

That one probably isn't wide enough at the wide end, and i wouldnt need it to go as long as 105. My 50mm is a fantastic portrait lens so i have that covered, but i need something that can do lanscapes, and 28mm on a crop body is'nt that wide!

There seems to be a lot of love for the tamron, maybe i should lean this way from the sigma.

[Eggle]

I sold my 18 - 55 kit lens and bought a Sigma 18 - 125 as a walk around. F3.5 - 5.6.
I like it!

[TheGreatSoprendo]

Right, just dug out the magazine reviews...

What Digital Camera tested both the Sigma and Tamron in their April 2010 issue, and both scored 91% overall and both were given the What Digital Camera gold award. They also scored identically on the various sub categories they rated against:

Features 18
Design 18
Performance 18
Image Quality 18
Value 19

Their likes and dislikes were as follows:

Sigma:
Likes - Great all round lens
Dislikes - non internal focusing

Tamron:
Likes - fast aperture
Dislikes - non internal focusing

So, not much in it numerically, but they suggest, quite rightly, that it really boils down to whether you value the speed of the Tamron or the longer reach of the Sigma more. Personally I plumped for the extra range of the Sigma. By the way, I was talking nonsense in my earlier post about where I bought my lens - I actually got it from Clifton Cameras in Bristol (not Park Cameras) for £315.

I also have a copy of Digital Camera Essentials which has a review of the Tamron where it scores an overall 4/5 stars and the following in their sub categories:

Features 4
Build quality 4
Performance 3
Image Quality 4
Value 5

They note that it's a lot cheaper than rquivalent lenses from Canon and Nikon but doesn't feel it. They also found it suffered from barrel distortion at the wide end and had to be stopped down to f4 or 5.6 to deliver its true sharpness.

Hope that helps...

[Starfighter]

the 17-85 is OK but it distorts like hell at either end of the range. 28-135 is better for that but you do't get the wide end in the crop.

USed 17-40 would be an option but around £500

[RobDickinson]

jimmy156 said:

So im looking at the Canon 17-85 4-5.6 IS USM lens, £379. The Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 OS HSM Macro, £328. The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro Lens, £316. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF £335, or Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di £359

Canon 17-85 4-5.6 IS USM lens £379. Overpriced and underpeforms. Soft, vignettes, distorts CA's, the 18-55IS kit lens is opticaly better but doesnt have USM...

The Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 OS HSM Macro, £328. The non OS is a decent lens havnt seen any reviews of the OS version.

The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro Lens, £316. built better than the tamron nice optics, slight field curvature to the focal plane.

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF £335. great optics, poor build, poor focus speed/noise. Probably the pick of the bunch especialy for value. DONT go for the image stabalised version which is opticaly inferior.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di - No, IMO not wide enough on a crop, after all thats the point of this lens purchase isnt it?


As others have said, considcer the 18-55 IS kit lens too , its actualy not bad.

[KarlosFandango]

I used a 17-85 for a couple of years and found it to be more than adequate for general photography, I bought the wife a 20d and she pinched the lens so I now use a Tamron 17-50 2.8. Can't really fault it either for cost and ability, the only downside is the lack of reach. I had a 17-70 Sigma for a while but couldn't get on with it.

[jimmy156]

Thegreatsoprando said:

Useful stuff

RobDickinson said:

more usefull stuff

Thanks for this guys, exactly the kind of info i was after.

Looks like there isn't a lot between the tamron and sigma lenses, with perhaps a little in the tamrons favour. I am quite drawn to the close focus ability of the sigma's though, even though its not true macro. I think the best thing is to see if i can find somewhere that stocks both (or all three including the longer sigma) and find which one i prefer the feel of, as i think this is an important part of the equation.

Will consider the 18-55 kit lens as well, although i had previously written it off. I can borrow this off a family member and see how i get on with it.

Thanks everyone for all the advice and info

[RobDickinson]

Make sure its the IS kit lens, the non IS kit lens is much poorer and not to be recomended.

Sigma also do an 18-55f3.5-5.6 OS (I think) which is actualy quite decent opticaly and quite cheap, probably better than the canon IS kit lens.

I almost bought the tamron, its a great lens, just the 17-55f2.8IS is better...