What do you get... (lens discussion)

divamum

....as a wider zoom when you can't afford a 17-55IS (:crysigh) and even a Tamron 17-50 might break the budget?

I think a new lens is the item on my current shopping list that will have to wait for a bit (although that means my widest lens is now my 50mm 1.8), but I figure I may as well start sifting through my choices in case things start to look up or I stumble over a lucky find somewhere - the further under $200 the better. Any discontinued models out there worth seeking out? Sigmas? Older Canons or Tammys? How's the 18-55is or 28-135is (they're both slower than I'd like, but at the right price might be a stopgap....)

Fast would be good, fast and quiet even better, but with my current financial limitations I realise I'll have to compromise somewhere, and IQ - without too much size or weight - will ultimately take top priority I guess.

My current setup:

xsi, 50mm 1.8, 55-250is, old EF 70-210, 420ex flash (and a partridge in a pear... oh. Whoops. Wrong list :giggle)

Tee Why

You aren't getting a fast normal zoom for digitals at under $400 new.
I'd recommend the 18-55mmIS. I had it and tested it and it's a fine lens. Not build like a pro lens, but then again, it's about 1/6 of the price too.

Sigma 4 less has a gray model version for about $120 and B&H has it for about $150 or so and I'd say that the best bang for the bucks.

divamum

Tee Why wrote:

You aren't getting a fast normal zoom for digitals at under $400 new.
I'd recommend the 18-55mmIS. I had it and tested it and it's a fine lens. Not build like a pro lens, but then again, it's about 1/6 of the price too.

Sigma 4 less has a gray model version for about $120 and B&H has it for about $150 or so and I'd say that the best bang for the bucks.

Yeah, I know that I'll need to go up to at least $400 to get anything I *really* want (suggestions other than the Tam 17-50 welcomed on that front too), but figure I better have a backup plan. I suppose I could drag out the kit zoom from my Elan IIe if I absolutely can't get anything else but... ugh.

What are the respected sigma choices in this focal range? I've seen several listed - all very similar - but I'm having trouble figuring out which are which, and several now seem discontinued (but replaced by a model of almost identical name, confusing things further)

How does the 18-55is ompare to its telezoom sibling, the 55-250is? I have that lens and was surprised at how good it is - yeah, the af can hunt and be annoying, but it's surprisingly sharp for the price. If the 18-55 is similar, it might be a good stopgap to tide me over until I can put together the funds for the tammy or the 17-55. I've seen some reviews, but the 55-250 has generally seemed better regarded, which has left me slightly confused as to whether the shorter zoom is worth giving a try.

Thanks all - just brainstorming, and ideas which push the price range aren't out of the question; I'm really just gathering info so I can try to make a decision. Thanks!

ziggy53

You can occasionally find the Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 EX DC (not the Macro version) used for $200-$250USD. I have and use that lens for personal events and knocking around when I don't want to risk another better lens. It works great at f4, but it's usable wide open.

Even the Canon "kit" EF-S 18-55mm, f3.5-f5.6 can be OK if you use it as a 18-55mm, f5.6-f8. Used along with your flash indoors it could tide you over until you could afford better.

divamum

Thanks Ziggy. I'll definitely keep my eyes open for that. Most of the ones I see listed are the macro, but at least I know what to look for now. I find the similarity of all these different generations of not-quite-the-same sigma lenses makes it really hard to keep track of which is which!

And another one I meant to ask about: the efs 17-85is. Again, mixed reviews that I've seen, so hard to know - anybody here care to comment? I have to say that even though it's slower than I'd like, that would be a NICE focal length for a walkaround zoom....

ziggy53

divamum wrote:

... And another one I meant to ask about: the efs 17-85is. Again, mixed reviews that I've seen, so hard to know - anybody here care to comment? I have to say that even though it's slower than I'd like, that would be a NICE focal length for a walkaround zoom....

A lot of folks like the Canon EF-S 17-85mm, f/4-5.6 IS but I have never personally been interested. It seems to have been designed to address those people who had the Canon EF 28-135, f/3.5-5.6 IS on film cameras, and they both provide somewhat improved quality over a consumer zoom. They are both too slow for me to really consider for most of my use and style. (I do a lot of indoor stuff and I really desire the f2.8 or better apertures, partly for focus advantages and partly for better visibility through the viewfinder.)

If I were doing more outdoor images I might consider it though.

Art Scott

Look for Good Used....
Look for good used and if from ebay they have a warrnty program....

maybe a Sigma 17-70.....heard really good tings about this and plan on it taking the place of my Siggy 24-70 when I adbandon my Konica Minolta 7D's and head back to nikon...............

chrisjohnson

I used the Canon EF-S 17-85mm, f/4-5.6 for a few weeks - standard kit lens - and found it pretty good. If you shoot in good light this lens is fine. Indoors you might think of a flash, and outdoors think of humping a tripod. You'll be well equipped for the cash.

jeffreaux2

Of course it won't be wide enough on a crop sensor camera to address all your needs, The Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 is also a VERY good lens as it is very versitile. It isn't a true macro lens, but will focus at 12 or 13 inches making for some nice close-up work. It isn't "silent" but isn't annoyingly loud either. It focuses much slower than an ultrasonic Canon, but is faster at this than the Canon 50mm F1.8. Mine treated me well, and I shot several weddings with it as well as a good many portraits. The only time it wasn't wide enough was when the kids piled up with friends for giant group shots....and then I would wait until other parents were done shooting so I could back up 3 or 4 steps to get everyone in the frame. By comparison, I can be several steps closer than other parents shooting P&S if I am using the 17-55.

It is a bit above your $200 budget...I sold mine a month ago used for $300. I have seen them used as low as $270.

Were I you, I would possibly consider waiting until the budget will allow another $100-200. This will put you into a much better batch of choices whether new or used.

I'd avoid the 17-85 Canon altogether. I have never seen or heard anything super wonderful about this lens.

FWIW, before Canon rolled out the 17-55F2.8IS, the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 was the lens of choice for crop sensor "normal zoom" shooters.

Canon XTi and Tamron 28-75 F 2.8 lens samples....

divamum

Thanks for all the great info, guys! I'm really I glad I decided to go ahead and post this thread - I hesitated since the discussion of wider zooms is so frequent, but since those always boiled down to "17-55is if you have the money, Tamron 17-50 if you don't", I wanted to consider the *other* options if only to see what might be possible with more limited finances

I still haven't figured out quite how I'll proceed, hence all this brainstorming. I have sooo many things I want/need to get with the money available just to catch up to a decent set of basic tools. And, of course, everything balances against everything else - do I shell out the extra for an oem grip, or do I save that money by going with the hit-and-miss Opteka and put the extra $60 in the lens fund? Similarly for a monitor calibrator - get that taken care of now, or wait and add those pennies to the lens fund? And so on.

Thanks everybody for weighing in. And Jeff, I swear you could take pictures with the bottom of a Coke bottle and make them look good so I don't know how seriously I can take those as examples of the lens's abilities .... D

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

Thanks everybody for weighing in. And Jeff, I swear you could take pictures with the bottom of a Coke bottle and make them look good so I don't know how seriously I can take those as examples of the lens's abilities .... D

Here's a couple that my son took using my 28-75 f/2.8 - just to show you that it doesn't take Jeff's magic to produce very good results with this lens...

1.


2.


3.


BTW - This will be one of the last lenses I sell should I ever have to start selling down to put food on the table. It is sooooo useful. One of my best friends uses this lens, almost exclusively, to shoot weddings/receptions.

divamum

Yeah, but your son will have a genetic dose of your own photographic pixie dust, so I can still be skeptical

Seriously - thanks both of you for the examples. I'll be honest: the first lens I bought when I got my XT in '07 was the Tam 28-75 and I actually returned it because I HATED it. I think it must have been a bad copy or something (and I wasn't knowledgeable enough to realise that might have been the case, and assumed it just wasn't a very good lens) because I couldn't get it to focus accurately on anything, so I decided it wasn't for me and sent it back for the usm 28-105 (which is the one I just sold).

However, praise from you two convinces me it's worth another try. I'm trawling the usual sources to see what's out there even as we speak...

jeffreaux2

divamum wrote:

Yeah, but your son will have a genetic dose of your own photographic pixie dust, so I can still be skeptical

Seriously - thanks both of you for the examples. I'll be honest: the first lens I bought when I got my XT in '07 was the Tam 28-75 and I actually returned it because I HATED it. I think it must have been a bad copy or something (and I wasn't knowledgeable enough to realise that might have been the case, and assumed it just wasn't a very good lens) because I couldn't get it to focus accurately on anything, so I decided it wasn't for me and sent it back for the usm 28-105 (which is the one I just sold).

However, praise from you two convinces me it's worth another try. I'm trawling the usual sources to see what's out there even as we speak...

The best thing about the Tamrons is the 6 (yes six!!!) year warranty. That...is saying something! I had noticed some (minor) softness issues with mine on distant subjects and in low contrast situations. That said, it wasn't bad enough that I stopped using it to send it for service until AFTER I had bought the 17-55mm. The Tamron folks were very accomodating and the lens was calibrated, cleaned, and the zoom ring adjusted on their nickel. I used it very little after I got it serviced since I had fallen in love with the 17-55, but did lend it to co-shooters at weddings, and I used it for macro-ish close ups (think wedding rings....like that double heart shot). Anyway I did use it almost exclusively for a wedding for the couple in the first example I gave you. It was a beach wedding, and I had polorizer filters to fit the tammy and my 85mm prime and so I used those two for the wedding. It performed well, but when I decided to get a 70-200 F2.8IS I had to sell it for funding along with my 50mm F1.8 and the kit lens that came with my XTi. The guy I sold it to has already replaced it with a 17-50 Tamron and sold it to a co-worker of mine. I am hoping to get the chance to buy it back someday!...as of now I am considering a full-frame camera and would sorely need it. My immeditate thought after selling it was "what on earth will I use for ring shots and for a spare lens in case of the unthinkable?". I'd buy it again in a heartbeat.

It has a reputation for needing calibrating for crop sensor cameras, but its a good buy still.

My current plan is to buy a 50D(still waivering with 5D mkII) and 50mm F1.4, the 50mm will be in case of the unthinkable at events. It wont be wide enough, but will see me through.

Edit to add: I have never shot through a coke bottle, and I know nothing of magic. I just push the buttons.

Tee Why

Also consider the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro version, it may just be at $400 or just under. Another $300 ish option is a Sigma 17-70mm.

I think the performance of the 18-55mm IS will surprise you. If properly process and sharpened, it produces very good results.

Here are my test images with it.
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/3918448_rcpoZ#P-1-12

pyry

I'll vote for the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC - I tested one a good while back and very nearly bought it (used, from a friend, just didn't get a good deal on it...)
It gets soft at the edges wide open, but other than that it's fine.

At least two of my friends have the 17-70 macros from Sigma and have been happy with those. I haven't tested that one meself.

This is very much my opinion, but standard zooms start at 28mm equivalent. I would feel very limited by a 28-something on a crop body. Go for the shorter ones.

divamum

Update on this:

Got lucky with a like-new Tammy 17-50 for a VERY attractive price, so stumped the extra to get it (since it was my first choice lens). This lens is light and the af was quiet and fast (faster than I remember the 28-75). Have only taken a few shots with it and need to get to know it, but I can't say I'm disappointed so far!

Thanks for all the input everybody

Fwiw, first shots with it (dof is too shallow - my fault, I think, not the lense's - just getting to know it....)

Art Scott

nice kitties.....shots there of I mean.....dang and i forgot to plug the Siggy 24-70 2.8......light (to me) and extremely sharp......always amazes me at how much sharper the photos appear to be as opposed to what I thought I saw...:D

MT Stringer

Tammy for me
I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the 28-75 f/2.8 and I like them both. However the 17-50 goes with me when I'm going to events like birthday parties, etc.
Here;s a sample taken inside the living room at my neice's house.
Good luck in your search.
Mike

jeffreaux2

That second shot is very nice....great light as well. For future reference, the Canon 17-55mm can shoot kitties at F2.8 as well.





You made a good buy on a great piece of glass....enjoy!!!:D

divamum

jeffreaux2 wrote:

That second shot is very nice....great light as well.

Thanks! Yeah, the light was magic - the room had wraparound windows so it was just gleaming at about 2pm yesterday. I couldn't resist!

the Canon 17-55mm can shoot kitties at F2.8 as well.

Ah, a girl can dream..... - That is almost certainly where this will all head eventually... but NOT yet (ooooohhhh my aching wallet! ). That said, I got such a great price on this thing that it was a no-brainer to go ahead with it -the seller even threw in the uv AND polarizer filters - given those are 67mm, that's a very nice extra The monitor calibrator can wait just a little longer.......

[/quote]You made a good buy on a great piece of glass....enjoy!!!:D[/quote]

Thanks. I am enjoying - a lot!

Now, shall we start the vigil for the FedEx truck carrying your 50d?

divamum

Art Scott wrote:

nice kitties.....shots there of I mean.....dang and i forgot to plug the Siggy 24-70 2.8......light (to me) and extremely sharp......always amazes me at how much sharper the photos appear to be as opposed to what I thought I saw...:D

Thanks Art! I'm pleased with the Tammy so far - seems so much more responsive than the 28-75 I tried out 2 years ago (lighter, too). I think there will be a learning curve to getting the most out of it especially wide open, but that's ok - that's the fun part

divamum

MT Stringer wrote:

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the 28-75 f/2.8 and I like them both. However the 17-50 goes with me when I'm going to events like birthday parties, etc.
Here;s a sample taken inside the living room at my neice's house.
Good luck in your search.
Mike

Thanks Mike- I'm really looking forward to putting this thing through it's paces. What I find interesting is that even though I've been using the 50 1.8 almost exclusively the last few weeks, the dof on this - even though it's 2.8 instead of 1.8 - actually seems slightly shallower (not sure if that's just my perception or the reality). Just need to learn my way round it - very pleased so far though!

Scott_Quier

Madeleine,

Congrats on your new toy!!ivar

Did the list of "What to look for" items I put together for you help you in making the buy/no-buy decision? Just curious.

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

Madeleine,

Congrats on your new toy!!ivar

Did the list of "What to look for" items I put together for you help you in making the buy/no-buy decision? Just curious.

Yes, was just about to send you a PM thanking you again for all that - it TOTALLY helped, because it gave me something other than my own *perceptions* to use are markers. The histogram info was dead on throughout, btw (and it never would have occurred to me to use the DOF preview either - a test which also played out perfectly).


With this lens I still need to fully assess the focusing points/sharpness now that i've got it home, but I figure with a nearly-new Tammy the very worst-case scenario would be that I send it in for calibration. It's certainly "sharp enough" straight out of the box, so I'm confident it will be a good tool once I find my way around its unique preferences (I never realised before now how each individual lens can be so different in what gets the best out of it - learning curve on that, but it's a fun one!)

Have you posted that info anywhere as a sticky, or in your sig? It's really clear and helpful and goes a significant step beyond the obvious things. Thanks again, Scott!