Equipment Suggest a Lens | Canon |

Hello!

It's been couple years since I got my Canon Rebel,
and I got to the point where I want to expand beyond the 18-55 kit lens and the nifty fifty.

I do not have a specific needs for a lens. No need for huge zooms, nor very wide. Often shoot in low light/no flash. Would like to have a good general lens.

I was thinking about a Sigma 70-300 at first; for kit+zoom large mm coverage, but I don't really need such a big zoom.

I would rather replace the kit lens. Question 1 - is it really that big of a difference kit vs sigma 18-50 f2.8

More than replacing I'd like to expand a little.
18-125mm would be the most desirable, but it seems to be quit a crappy lens.

I was looking at Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 which goes for 570 silly amerikan dollars.
Sigma also has a newer (way more compact) HSM model for a whopping $900 USD
Question 2 - I looked up HSM, so very quiet & faster motor. How much of a difference HSM makes?
Sigma also has 28-70mm f2.8 which is only $350? How come?
Question 3 - How much does the build quality and 4mm make, since its still the same f2.8

Please share your experiences if you have/had 24/28-70mm.
Please suggest advise on good walk-around lens.
(Mind that I have crop 1.6ratio with no immediate body upgrade)

P.S. I've searched the forum for similar threads and while I found some great info from bitekkers, I have not found the answers. If I failed at my search, and this is indeed too repetitive of a thread, I appologize and please close/delete/moderate.

 

i've got a 40d and a much older EOS 1, i use the 28-135mm that i love.

i say get the kit and also the longer 300mm lens. i'm working on affording one of the high end ones. you do want USM if at all possible. as for my reason in choosing this, it's nice having a wide angle lens but at least for myself when i go out and shoot there are so many times i want a shot but i can't get it because the lens is just a little too short.

for your questions, do you have links to the lenses you are referencing? it's hard for me to try and guess the difference between them. probably the difference in the $900 lens and the $350 is the HSM/USM and AF.

as you say you typically shoot in low light without flash you probably do need something with an F-stop of 2.8 over anything else. sadly, these type of lenses are usually way more expensive.

 

F/2.8 lenses are also generally heavier than lenses with narrower maximum apertures too, which may make it feel unbalanced on your Rebel body. I found Canon's 28-70 F/2.8 to be a bit too heavy on my 450D, so got a battery grip to balance it out a bit more.

 

Your needs seem to vary extensively...so I'll try to break it down for you.
Where in your current kit do you feel you are lacking most? Standard end or tele end?
If standard:
-One lens you overlooked is the Tamron 17-50/2.8, which is one of the best APS-C standard zoom lenses for the money. If f/2.8 is important to you, this lens is hard to beat. One caveat though, it does tend to hunt in low light/low contrast conditions and the AF motor is relatively loud, other than that AF is pretty snappy. This is the better choice over the Sigma 18-50/2.8II
-If I were you I'd ditch the Sigma 24-70 (non-HSM) idea right away. The HSM version is said to be miles ahead optically and the implementation of HSM has made a significant difference in speed...unfortunately I have heard of inaccuracy and focus issues (which is no stranger to Sigma)--A shame really, because this lens had me interested. One more thing to keep in mind--24/28mm is not all that wide on APS-C bodies, so you may want to try it out for yourself before committing.
-The Sigma 17-70 is a great lens as well--great range, solid build, close focusing, good IQ but the variable aperture is what lead me to sell mine. Granted if you can deal with f/4.5 on the long end and don't need a lens for low light work it is a good choice.
-The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is another lens you may find interest in. It's small and light and offers a constant f/2.8 aperture and great IQ. AF speed is much like the 17-50, maybe a tad slower. But again, like the sigma 24-70, it's range may not be suitable for use on APS-C--that up to you.

Tele:
-Canon 70-300IS: I'm not sure if you are referring to this lens or not, but if you are it's a great tele zoom. Very sharp, solidly built and relatively small and light. AF speed and variable aperture are it's weaknesses, IOW it's definitely a good light, slower action lens.
-Canon 70-200/4: Usually this lens is considered along with the 70-300IS when people are looking for a good tele zoom in this price range. Optically its excellent and it has a USM motor to match. Like the 70-300IS it is relatively small and light, specifically when considering it's bigger brothers. When compared to the 70-300IS a few things jump out immediately...the L is 100mm shorter, which is significant if you plan to shoot wildlife, and is a bit more 'in your face' with its white paint job. It's also missing an IS system. The upsides are the constant f/4 aperture, superior AF speed and L build. It's also an 'IF' lens, which means it focuses internally without an extending barrel, which may or may not be important to you.

Since you live close enough to the city I think you would benefit from a trip to B&H. Try out the various lenses and judge them for yourself on the spot. Don't buy it there, instead make mental notes of each lens, go home and read up on various reviews (The digital picture, FM reviews, photozone etc etc). Once you have come to a conclusion look up the prices on these three websites (Beach camera, buy dig, Abes of Maine) and compare them to those posted on B&H. The three sites I listed will all save you from NY state tax and all offer free shipping and good return/exchange policies. If you choose Abes of Maine be sure to enter promo 'loyalty10' at checkout to receive an additional $10 off.

 

Ooooh, a trip to B&H! It's like going to wonderland!

Cheap, from looking at what you regularly shoot (and keeping the crop in mind), I'd highly recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's a great lens and though it's a little slow AF in low-light, it takes great pictures (from experience, it's the lens I shoot about 90% of my pictures with).

Personally, I've found that I really don't want for super tele zoom - so I picked up a cheap Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS to fill in the need when I want length...but it's rare for that lens to even see the outside of the bag. It's cheap and light enough that I don't have to feel bad lugging it with me just in case, but I found that getting rid of the kit and upgrading to the tamron gave me a whole slew of options to my photography that I never knew existed.

I know it doesn't seem like the "addition" to your collection that you were thinking of, but I bet you'll find anything that starts at 28mm will be too long on your crop body to be "general" use, unless your shots generally range in the 40-55 (and wishing it was 60) range. If you have lightroom, it gives you great stats on your usage and that will help you decide, particularly for your "general" lens.

I'm with Vers though - try it out. Actually, if you're close enough, RENT a couple lenses of different lengths and find out how well they fit your shooting style!!!

 

Thanks ya'll! Everyone is so nice and helpful in this forum.
B&H is definitely a photographers wonderland. Although I never imagined wonderland with so many hardcore hassidic jews.

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 IF EX

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG

Yeah I've got a battery grip, I covered an event couple weeks ago. Four hours with a huge L lens that my girl let me borrow (man she has around or over $5000 in kit and does not take many pics, not too familiar with fstop and basics :/ ) and it felt okay.
I'm don't mind size/weight nor do I ever use a pop-up flash, so that's not an issue.
I think I got persuaded by others to not go with 24-70 on a crop sensor.
But could you please share how your 450D went with it? Did you miss low end a lot? Did you have another wide lens to compensate?

At first I felt I was lacking in the zoom, but thinking about it for a bit I'd much rather get a better replacement for a kit, and in the future expand into bigger zooms. I feel I will end up like Da Dego, a cheap zoom that only sometimes is used. And I always forget I can look that up in Lightroom...

Thanks so much for the Tamron suggestion!

Tamron - SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF)
Tamron - Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]

There's a $200 difference between these two. Is the difference a similar case as with HSM of Sigma? Where the more expensive version is way quieter and better in focusing. Anyone has one over the other?

Now in terms of renting, I looked around I think I'll stop at lenspro and grab couple things for a day.

So the future would look like Tamron 17-50 f2.8, a cheap 70-300 (is there a term for variable f?), and then after that I'd be looking at getting some nice primes.

Thanks Vers & Da Dego!

 

The VC version is new--'VC' is Tamron's version of IS. I haven't heard much about it, but if its anything like the original (optically) with the same or increased AF performance then it may be worth the additional cost for some.

 

Yeah, I did miss the low-end but I quickly corrected that with a 17-40 F4L, which became my walkaround when I didn't require low-light performance. Since I moved to full frame, the 28-70 has become my walkaround, but I find that it's quite heavy for wandering around - body and lens is getting on for 1.7kg, which isn't particularly portable.

Because of that, I'm looking to get a semi-pro compact (PowerShot G11, Lumix LX3, etc) to do the carry around job and leave the 5D for when I'm taking photos on purpose, as they say. I go out with my camera quite a lot, so I don't foresee ever not using my 5D, but I find a lot of the time I don't have anything better than a mobile phone camera and although I'm a firm believer in "the best camera is the one in your pocket", mobile phone cameras are generally rubbish.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I was thinking about the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and also the Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8. The only reason I turned both of them down was because of my aspirations to eventually move to full frame. Both of them are APS-C only, so wouldn't have been much use. With that said though, I think they're both pretty good lenses optically (at least from what I'd read and I was close to buying one or other).

 

Wow I am definitely not looking to blow $500-700 and not be able to use it couple years later when I get a full frame.

My guess is that the glass is way smaller for APS-C only lenses, so on a full frame body the vignetting and distortion is terrible.

Damn this breaks my plan quite a bit...

[EDIT]: Nevermind, I'm probably just gonna jump to 7D in the future, so I'll check that 17-50 then.

 

Generally, glass holds its value pretty well, but it's a matter of whether you want to find replacements for lenses in the future or just change the way you use them as you get the full frame sensor.

 

Cheap, Tim's story is EXACTLY why I never went full-frame. You may find that (like me) you don't WANT to move to full-frame because you carry your camera. I do a lot of travel with my kit, and the APS-C lets me carry lighter gear with the same quality of shots - useful in the city, and an utter godsend when backpacking. That's where things like the 50D and 7D come in quite nicely.

As for the new VC Tamron, I'd consider that a worthwhile upgrade - I do a lot of landscape stuff and I also don't carry my tripod everywhere with me - the ability to have some hand-holding IS would be great, actually. I normally don't recommend IS for lenses in that class because the low aperture and short focal length negates their need (1/60th to stop handshake generally), but to be honest using it as my daily walk-around, I wish I had it. In fact, I may upgrade to it...

Anyhow, as always, YMMV.

 

The 7D is a good camera (nay, a great camera), but it gets very soft at narrower apertures because of diffraction - I had a play with one and found that my images looked softer than those out of my 450D, even when I made resolution equal (either upscaling the 450D images or downscaling the 7D images).

Essentially, it's not a landscape photographers' camera, but there are a lot of features that I wanted - the new AF system is amazing for example, as is the high frame rate - both would be perfect for the occasional sports/action photography I do.

That said, landscape is my main foray and that's why I decided against the 7D and went for the 5D Mk2 - it's fairly weak below f/10, as Diffraction Limited Apertures kick in at f/6.8, compared to f/10.3 for the 5D Mk2 and f/8.4 for the 450D. This is one reason why I think Nikon has actually got it right with regards to sensor technology. Frankly, we don't need much more resolution (you can make very good 18x12 prints from a 12mpix sensor) but we do need better dynamic range and sensitivity.

Before I get too far off topic, landscaping is generally a slow process (especially if you're using a tripod) - your workflow slows right down, so heavy gear doesn't matter so much, although you've still got to carry it.

One thing I'm still up in the air about is whether or not I hold onto my 450D and get something like the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 as a carry around, or sell the body and go down the semi-pro compact route. The semi-pro compact would be great for my work bag, for example, as there are often times when I wish I had a camera with me, but I'd also like to be able to take advantage of proper filtration if I wanted to.

 

I take it you mean lighter by cheap consumer grade lenses? Pro grade f2.8 zooms for APS-C aren't THAT much lighter. A D300 is the same weight as a D700 give or take a few grams (ok bad example haha) but the weight of the lens pretty much negates the weight of an APS-C vs FF body).
I only really use my 24-70 f2.8 AF-S for events, I take a 35mm prime, 85mm and 135mm. That's pretty light with the benefit of being fast glass too. Only 'downside' is changing lenses.

The BIG issue, is cost. Full frame lenses, cost more than their equivalent FF glass. This probably doesn't affect Canon users, but Nikon has yet to release a 14-24 F4 or something similar for FF users. It's either the 14-24 f2.8 (awesome lens but might expensive for a lens that won't get used all the time) or third party. For APS-C, to get that kind of coverage, you can easily do that for half the money.

I'd go for a fast zoom like the 17-50 f2.8 as V suggested, or perhaps a 12-24, followed by a few primes.

Oh and Tim; I'd sell the 450D. The only reason my D80 isn't gone is because;
1; it's not worth it for me to sell it,
2; I can use it to get more reach if I ever decide to pair it with my 70-300 VR for the odd tele pic
3; I can get more reach and more dof for the odd macro pic
4; mostly because I can't shoot an event without a backup body, no matter how much slower it is, compared to my D700.

 

Bit meandering now, aren't we? </tries to herd the cats back on course>

Poor Cheap, your question has been answered (as best as can be), your thread has now been hijacked to argue pedantic details. You may now exit the aircraft - and remember, the holes in your parachute are not a bug, they're a feature for a faster, more interesting descent.

 

GET THE BIGGEST ONE! BIGGEST = BEST



Excuse me ladies, I need somewhere to put my lens

 

Thanks for trying to herd the cats Da Dego, the meandering is somewhat educational though. I've leaned about some very important things.

Took some simple event pics with my nifty fifty and Canon's 17-50mm f2.8 [photos]

Loved the combo.

Read a lot of forums and reviews, it seems that the new version T17-50 f2.8 VC is quite a big improvement.
I definitely would not pay $200 more for VC only,
but the reviews/comments say that it has greatly improved BQ and general feel,
and the focusing speed has been improved greatly, as is the sound of focusing (which is said to be quite bad on the old version).
It's very recently released version, I'll wait for some more people to buy/review it. But it seems that Tamron worked on all the little issues people complained about.
If my initial research is correct, the new VC Tamron is really pushing up against the Canon's 17-50. I'm excited how close you can get for so much less money, while still understanding why others do pay a hefty extra for USM.

 

I can't see the Tamron 17-50 VC performing better than the Canon 17-55IS in terms of AF--no other Tamron lens has. That's not to say that it doesn't, just unlikely IMO. Either way I've only come across one review, which looks to be the same one you read, and it was the Nikon version. I'd wait to hear a few more reviews before betting on just the one. FWIW out of the four customer reviews listed on BH's site three gave poor feedback (Nikon mount).

 

I think I worded my thoughts wrong. What I was saying is that I understand why people buy Canon USM, but excited how close Tamron is getting considering prices. (Since most people don't use manual focus or would see a big difference in AF)

I'm not buying the lens now, and not rushing; but after reading quite few reveiws (and looking at feedback on other photo equip websites) I can only conclude that some bad batch of lenses or something.

Or which I don't know how likely it is, bogus reviews float around adorama and other websites. One dude said he already shot a wedding with the new VC and said that there was a noticeable difference in images.

Other reviews pretty much said that distortion at low end is way improved, focusing speed, BQ and etc are way improved while at the same time quite a bit off from the big boys.

That said there is a huge jump in sharpness from f2.8-4 but Personally I think there's plenty of audience for who will not care about that aspect. (care enough for $350 to have clear water droplets at 2.8)

See this link

 

A bit of a sidetrack here: the Canon S90 might be your best bet for semi-pro pocket cam. Canon really did seem to do a great job with it; very small, fast (aperture), and an awesome control ring near the lens.