Canon, Sigma or Tamron?

[clicknick]

That lens should be great.. Just that range is a bit short, really depends on what you want and how much you willing to spend.. Did you try the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8?

Not out yet

 

[vii_haven]

I read about that lens and all but i asked Cathay about it and they insisted that they didn't have it?

That lens should be great.. Just that range is a bit short, really depends on what you want and how much you willing to spend.. Did you try the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8?

 

[jeryltan]

clicknick was saying it's not out yet.. I also not too sure, maybe you want to wait a while or try other shops.. From Tamron's website, it seems that the 17-50mm f/2.8 is cheaper :dunno:

I read about that lens and all but i asked Cathay about it and they insisted that they didn't have it?

 

[clicknick]

From this site, available in US in May 2006

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_6359.html

 

[honda]

i have the sigma 18-50/2.8. i sold my 50/1.8 and 28-105/3.5-4.5 mk2 after i got it. i found that the sigma is as sharp as the 50 and sharper than the zoom. i also had the 24/2.8 and sigma 24-60 previously, both not as good.

http://singaporephoto.blogspot.com
http://canoncameralover.blogspot.com

 

[vii_haven]

i read that the sigma 18-50 2.8 has really bad CA at certain intervals. the sample photos shown looks quite bad as well.

 

[TITANIUMLEE]

Wait for Tamron SP AF17-50MM F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] and see how lor, be patiant hor.

 

[djork]

stick with the kit lens

the cheapest things are usually the best

so i assume you practice what you just said?

 

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

You know, to be frank, I'm very intrigued by the new Sigma 17-70 as it gives you macro capability down to 1:2.3. Crazy impressive for a zoom lens. I've no idea as of yet how it performs and I'll probably never buy it cos I can't use it but If you're interested in DC lenses, this might be a good bet.

If you're ever intending to upgrade to 1.3X or 1.0X, get the 17-40L or 16-35L. If you plan to never upgrade beyond 1.6X and intend to maintain a stable of DC lenses, you might also want to consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8 that you've got in your list. Why? It's F2.8. Constant. I would take it over the F4L if I was using an APS-C sensor. Alternatively, bite the bullet and get the new EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS.

BUT, if you asked me to pick just one lens, it'll still be the sigma 17-70. Well, depending on how it performs first of course. I would only pick it if it gave me good wide open performance. My advise would be to wait for the reviews before picking up a copy.

looking at the MTF figures from sigma 17-70 alone, it seems to be mighty impressive right up to the corners. only thing is...its not a constant 2.8

 

[fWord]

If I were you, I'd hang on to the kit lens and save up at this moment. There's a few new lenses on the horizon with little said about them yet. If you wish to buy something that you'll use for a long period of time it might be good to think carefully before you spend. Currently I'm still using the kit lens as well, and although it's not stunning, it will suffice...for now. At least until I save up enough to get a replacement, or decide to ditch my telephoto and downsize.

Considering that the recommended lenses are probably beyond your budget at this time, it's not worth buying something lesser and not be satisfied with it. Amass knowledge while you build wealth, then spring for the best lens for your needs and wants.

 

[kelccm]

If limited budget get the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4
If more budget get the Canon 17-40mm f/4

Advantage of both is that they can be used for full frame camera.

 

[maritimus831]

get the canon17-40 f4. or 16-35 f.28 if u have the budget or the need for fast f-stop.
the focusing of USM is very very fast! just love the focusing speed of my 17-40L

 

[honda]

Purple fringe appears when u take pictures of dark objects against bright background for the sigma 18-50/2.8.

 

[Steplim]

hi,

Kit lens isn't that bad if you only need a normal wide-angle Protrait pics..
It looks cheap, and low cost no doubt, but that doesn't mean you can't take good pics. I have recently bought a used 17-40f/4L after I have found that the Kit lens had limit me for better shot and only after 2 years later. 17-40 is a very sharp lens, same sharpness as even prime lens. I have found that I want a good wide angle, sharp lens for walk-about lens and I don't prefer EF-S or DC lens where limit me for future upgrade to 1.3 or FF.
I owned a Sigma Macro and Tamron Telephoto, they are all worth their value for money.
Once, I have reached my level standard beyond the lens are capable of delivering, and my budget can allow me to, I will upgrade..... .

If I need to choose again, I still prefer 17-40f/4L. No regret.

 

[mpenza]

Also, i've had friends who have STRONGLY discouraged me from buying anything but original canon lenses, saying that the lenses are slower, spoil faster (due to poor build) etc. What's your take on buying third party lenses (namely Sigma and Tamron)? These people shoot professionally as well.

Canon lenses do not cover all the ranges and aperture (e.g. 20/1.8, 18-125, 18-200, etc). You should consider the all options (canon + 3rd party) and see if they meet ur needs and budget.

 

[vii_haven]

The kit lens kinda give images that are not as sharp when i try to shoot scenery with them. I think i'll save for a 17-40 f4L and just make do with my 24-85 f3.5-4.5, kit lens and 50 f1.8 now. =)