lens choice - help!
Discussion
Have been toying with the idea of the ef-s 17-55 f2/8 to replace the kit lens but it's a lot of money compared to (for example) the sigma 18-50 f2/8 and tamron 17-50 f2/8. I keep scouring the net to make a decision but am still undecided. Would appreciate any insight from anyone who has been down this path!
My concern with either the Sigma or Tamron is whether either are significantly better than the 18-55 IS kit-lens (which is not a bad lens for the money).
My concern with either the Sigma or Tamron is whether either are significantly better than the 18-55 IS kit-lens (which is not a bad lens for the money).
Edited by ukwill on Monday 12th July 14:52
If you want it all the ef-s 17-55f2.8IS is the one to get. I LOVE mine, it gets criticised for build and flunky IS but aparently (as lensrental say) the new ones are a lot more robust.
Sharp, everywhere, everywhen, fast acurate AF and the IS works well (supposed to be 2 stop), its not small but I find its nicely balanced on the 7D.
Galls me I had to buy the lens hood seperatly and its not sealed (mine has some dust, I dont care).
I've used a tamron 17-50f2.8 on nikon (D300) and opticaly it gives the canon a close run for its money. Focus is slow and clunky, and ofcourse NoS. Build is cheap.
The sigma 18-50f2.8 is better built but has field curvature and isnt in general as loved by people.
The tamron VC version is poorer opticaly and I would say stear clear.
Sigma have just relessed an OS version of their lens and it sounds like the closest thing to the canon, decent optical perfomance (tho rough corners) 4 stop OS and better focus, tho no full time manual override etc. Check photozone out.
Sharp, everywhere, everywhen, fast acurate AF and the IS works well (supposed to be 2 stop), its not small but I find its nicely balanced on the 7D.
Galls me I had to buy the lens hood seperatly and its not sealed (mine has some dust, I dont care).
I've used a tamron 17-50f2.8 on nikon (D300) and opticaly it gives the canon a close run for its money. Focus is slow and clunky, and ofcourse NoS. Build is cheap.
The sigma 18-50f2.8 is better built but has field curvature and isnt in general as loved by people.
The tamron VC version is poorer opticaly and I would say stear clear.
Sigma have just relessed an OS version of their lens and it sounds like the closest thing to the canon, decent optical perfomance (tho rough corners) 4 stop OS and better focus, tho no full time manual override etc. Check photozone out.
Thanks for the input guys, much appreciated.
Out of interest, i've just purchased a Tokina 12-24mm as I quite like land/beach/cityscape style photos. With this in mind do you think it would I would be better served using this for the 17-24 bracket and instead getting something like a 24-105 or 24-70 for a general purpose walkabout?
Out of interest, i've just purchased a Tokina 12-24mm as I quite like land/beach/cityscape style photos. With this in mind do you think it would I would be better served using this for the 17-24 bracket and instead getting something like a 24-105 or 24-70 for a general purpose walkabout?
RobDickinson said:
Having the 10-20 I faced the same choice, the 17-55 gives me a single lens that covers a decent wide to slight tele , with a 24-70 I would feel the need to take the 10-20 with me all the time and it'd involve more lens swaps.
Yes exactly my dilemma! Although I dont mind the idea of having 2 lenses with me, I'm not so sure about regular lens swaps.These kind of decisions infuriate me.
To compound my current dilemma, I've noticed that Sigma have also released a 17-50mm lens, complete with OS (IS/VR).
Seems to be around £520-600.
Only one review that I can find so far (new lens): http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28...
Which rates it quite highly "...starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS"
Think I might pop into CameraWorld/MicroGlobe tomorrow and check it out.
If anyone see's my missus, you didn't see me, right?
Seems to be around £520-600.
Only one review that I can find so far (new lens): http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28...
Which rates it quite highly "...starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS"
Think I might pop into CameraWorld/MicroGlobe tomorrow and check it out.
If anyone see's my missus, you didn't see me, right?
Edited by ukwill on Wednesday 14th July 23:01
ukwill said:
To compound my current dilemma, I've noticed that Sigma have also released a 17-50mm lens, complete with OS (IS/VR).
Seems to be around £520-600.
Only one review that I can find so far (new lens): http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28...
Which rates it quite highly "...starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS"
Think I might pop into CameraWorld/MicroGlobe tomorrow and check it out.
If anyone see's my missus, you didn't see me, right?
For that money you're into the territory of Canons 15-85mm IS and that's a cracker (and also my walkabout lens).Seems to be around £520-600.
Only one review that I can find so far (new lens): http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28...
Which rates it quite highly "...starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS"
Think I might pop into CameraWorld/MicroGlobe tomorrow and check it out.
If anyone see's my missus, you didn't see me, right?
Edited by ukwill on Wednesday 14th July 23:01
Dogsey said:
ukwill said:
To compound my current dilemma, I've noticed that Sigma have also released a 17-50mm lens, complete with OS (IS/VR).
Seems to be around £520-600.
Only one review that I can find so far (new lens): http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28...
Which rates it quite highly "...starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS"
Think I might pop into CameraWorld/MicroGlobe tomorrow and check it out.
If anyone see's my missus, you didn't see me, right?
For that money you're into the territory of Canons 15-85mm IS and that's a cracker (and also my walkabout lens).Seems to be around £520-600.
Only one review that I can find so far (new lens): http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28...
Which rates it quite highly "...starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS"
Think I might pop into CameraWorld/MicroGlobe tomorrow and check it out.
If anyone see's my missus, you didn't see me, right?
Edited by ukwill on Wednesday 14th July 23:01
RobDickinson said:
You dont buy an f2.8 lens to be good at f4. Honestly.
The sigma looks OK but poor in the absolute corners, also no FTM override on focus etc.
Its good but not quite as good as the canon, had it been around when I got the 17-55 I probably would have looked very long and hard at it.
I hear what you're saying Rob, but truthfully, whilst I enjoy taking photos, I'm not into it enough (or good enough by far) to warrant such an expense (canon 17-55), when there are other lenses that offer slightly less optically for far less money. I guess as always, you pays yer money...The sigma looks OK but poor in the absolute corners, also no FTM override on focus etc.
Its good but not quite as good as the canon, had it been around when I got the 17-55 I probably would have looked very long and hard at it.
I've looked at many of the flickr pics for the Tammy / Old Sigma and now new Sigma (as well as the Canon) to determine that for me, any of them would probably be good enough. I'm now just sat deliberating between which one - lol... I think it's going to be the new Sigma.
Novice Question: When I go the shop, could I ask them to check the lens for back/front focus issues before I purchase it? Or would it possibly be different when it's on my camera body?
ukwill said:
Novice Question: When I go the shop, could I ask them to check the lens for back/front focus issues before I purchase it? Or would it possibly be different when it's on my camera body?
Take your camera, try it on your camera, trying it on another camera is meaningless.Have a read of this :
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-le...
RobDickinson said:
ukwill said:
Novice Question: When I go the shop, could I ask them to check the lens for back/front focus issues before I purchase it? Or would it possibly be different when it's on my camera body?
Take your camera, try it on your camera, trying it on another camera is meaningless.Have a read of this :
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-le...
I'm looking at a similar choice. Want to sell my 17-85mm which has been my walkabout, and get something with a sharper IQ. I've got my eyes on a 15-85mm but then its not really ideal for indoor work also, so thought about the Tamron 17-50m 2.8. It might be a bit short for a walkabout, but after initially deciding on the 24-105, I thought it was just a bit too long for a crop body (40D).
I still want to get a 10-20 or 10-22 also for Landscapes, but I'm not sure if I'll be spoilt by the 15-85s versatility.
Anyone gone down that line of having 2 lenses, one for indoor, one outdoor?
I still want to get a 10-20 or 10-22 also for Landscapes, but I'm not sure if I'll be spoilt by the 15-85s versatility.
Anyone gone down that line of having 2 lenses, one for indoor, one outdoor?
Rob13 said:
I still want to get a 10-20 or 10-22 also for Landscapes, but I'm not sure if I'll be spoilt by the 15-85s versatility.
The difference between 10mm and 15mm is massive. A lot more than the numbers suggest.Sounds like you want an UWA like the 10-20mm, and a longer decent quality kit lens replacement like a Tamron 28-75mm.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff