Canon 400D from kit lens to Sigma 17-70

[blacksmith]

Is it consider a wise upgrading? The kit lens is the non-IS version.

 

[alternatve]

You are refering to the 18-55mm MkII eh? Then I can safely say the Sigma 17-70 would be a good choice in terms of image quality and range.

Samuel

 

[blacksmith]

You are refering to the 18-55mm MkII eh? Then I can safely say the Sigma 17-70 would be a good choice in terms of image quality and range.

Samuel

Yes, 18-55 MkII.

saw some very good reviews on Tamron 17-50 as well. not sure the extra 20mm (compared to sigma) is really important, since I only have the kit lens with me.

 

[alternatve]

Yes, 18-55 MkII.

saw some very good reviews on Tamron 17-50 as well. not sure the extra 20mm (compared to sigma) is really important, since I only have the kit lens with me.

Range against f/stop.

The sigma goes a tad longer, 15mm or 24mm in crop terms, not very much but good for a general purpose lens. The tamron is more of a paired lens, ie it's paired with a longer zoom for the added range plus it does not overlap range as well.

If you are ok with the low aperture and want the general purpose do it all functionality the Sigma is a good choice. If you prefer a high and constant aperture zoom lens and am willing to forgo the range, the Tamron is great.

Alternatively, the 18-55mm IS is a very good lens indeed, only let down by it's built quality and tendency to flare. It's worlds ahead of the 18-55 Mk II and is affordable at sub $200 prices.

Samuel

 

[ricleo]

the Sigma 17-70 is a good lens on the 1.6 crop, great for the F2.8 at wide angle and great macro function, you can really go very close with this lens, the lens can almost touch your subject at full zoom and it will still AF!

 

[satch]

I prefer the feel of the Tamron to the Sigma personally...

 

[wdEvA]

go for the tamron 17-50 f2.8 / 28-75 f2.8 if you are interested in nice bokeh as the extra zoom from the sigma is just 1-2 steps difference.