Looking for a sharp zoom *help? please?*

Hello all.
I'm looking for opinions and advice on finding a lens to suit my needs.


I'm currently using a Canon 40D and have a Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro, and a Sigma 17-70mm.



I primarly use my lenses for indoor & outdoor shots of miniatures, diorama set-ups as well as professional scale models (my husband is a professional model and prop maker).
I love the crisp, sharpness that I get from the Canon 60mm Macro but am finding it very limited when I have only a small space to work in--it can make getting some of the full images difficult to say the least.



I'd bought the Sigma in an attempt to have something that would allow me a larger range, but I don't find it to be particularly sharp, and I guess I may be spoiled by the 60.
Can anyone recommend a zoom (I'm thinking somewhere between 25-200max) that is reasonably priced (I'm not a pro & can't afford L glass), and sharp?
Any help is appreciated!

I'm a big fan of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8($450ish). I use mine 99.99% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ckw

Can anyone recommend a zoom (I'm thinking somewhere between 25-200max) that is reasonably priced (I'm not a pro & can't afford L glass), and sharp? Any help is appreciated!
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Give us your budget so that we can make the best suggestions....

I'm a big fan of both the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DII and 28-75 f2.8 DI Macro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ckw

I don't find it to be particularly sharp, and I guess I may be spoiled by the 60.

---

That's what it is. Do you use any sharpening or USM in post processing?


The Sigma 17-70 gets a very good grade from photozone.de and slrgear.com. May be you got a soft copy.


You ought to see the difference between a EF 50 1.4 @ f2.0 and a 70-200 f2.8 L @ f2.8. The prime wins every time. AndI consider the 70-200 @ 70mm and f2.8 very sharp. A little USM (200, .6, 0) helps give a little punch. For the 40D, if you haven't, try 200-250, .3, 0) and see what happens.


My2Abes,


Chuck

USM? Unsharp Mask, right? (I'm thinking she might not know that.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarhead5811

USM? Unsharp Mask, right? (I'm thinking she might not know that.)

---

"Right" - Thanks for the cover brother. [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarhead5811

USM? Unsharp Mask, right? (I'm thinking she might not know that.)

---

"Right" - Thanks for the cover brother. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

hehe...I was about to mention that, too.


As for my suggestion, the 70-200mm f/4 L is a fantastic zoom lens and very sharp. It is an "L" lens, though, but it's certainly not an unreasonable price. In fact, it's one of the least expensive "L" lenses there is. As long as you can use a monopod or tripod, you'd be good.

Thanks all of you for being so willing to pipe up and help me out with this! I really appreciate it.


I probably should also have mentioned that for about 75% of the time I am shooting on a tripod. (I don't know if it makes a difference, but I figured more info the better)





Thanks Jarhead :) That Tamron was actually on my "maybe" list! It's good to hear it get a recommendation. My other "maybe" was a Canon 17-85 although I keep reading many mixed reviews about it.





Sean


My budget is about &pound;250-300 for the moment (and I know I won't get much for that, but I have to try) ;)


Chuck


Thank you also for the positive feedback on the Tamron. :)


With regard to the sharpness (or lack thereof) "Do you use any sharpening or USM in post processing?" I do in photoshop for the sigma, but not for the 60. I figured that the 60 would be nicer because it was a dedicated prime instead of a zoom..For example, I didn't realize that lenses could differ (being the same model but softer or not!) But I'm still learning this photography stuff (and I'm afraid that the more technical it gets the more my brain reads it as algebra and starts to zone out)


Jarhead &amp; Chuck


"USM? Unsharp Mask, right? (I'm thinking she might not know that.)"


Yep, I have absolutely no clue about that. Are we talking something I do in photoshop, or is this something I do on the camera itself (I only got the 40D in march when my rebel went kaput &amp; I'm still trying to make the learning transition)





Sean


Thank you for the suggestion on the 70-200mm f/4 L ...right now that's coming up at &pound;975.00....just *cough* a tad out of my range. (for now at least). ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ckw

<a>Sean[/URL]


Thank you for the suggestion on the 70-200mm f/4 L ...right now that's coming up at &pound;975.00....just *cough* a tad out of my range. (for now at least). ;)

---

You mayhavelooked at the price for the 70-200mm f/4 L IS (Image Stabilized) lens (although I'm unsure exactly where you live and what currency you're talking about). The 70-200mm f/4 non-IS, however, is quite a bit cheaper than the "IS" version. It's right at $600 USD at BHphoto.com if I remember correctly. Again, that might still be a bit out of your price range...but it's worth looking into because you might want to save up a little longer and get a superior lens that you won't feel the need to upgrade anytime soon.

Sean:


Ah, yes, I see I did manage to find the one with the IS. And the non IS is considerably cheaper although at this point 400&pound; (I'm in the UK) is just beyond me.





Chuck &amp; Jarhead:


CAn you tell me is there a difference between the <span id="v4-1"]<span>Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical Lens and the one you've suggested? (I'm sure there is but I want to be clear so I avoid buying the wrong camera)





Many thanks folks! :D

How about the Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6? It's in your price range I think - about $400 USD.


I bought the 40D kid with the 28-135 and I liked it a lot. It's got a great (useful) range and isn't heavy. It doesn't
come close to the 70-200 in terms of sharpness (or any other attribute,
really) but none of the zooms under $600 can rival the 70-200.


The 28-135 is a good work-a-day lens. Using a tripod and
mirror-lockup, and the timer or a cable release, you should see images
that are acceptably sharp. It generally gets very good reviews for lenses at that price point.


Since I've never shot with the Sigma you mentioned, I can't compare it to the 28-135. But the 28-135 is a good lens. It seems to "accept" PP sharpening very well. A little bit of USM or Smart Sharpen and you can usually make an image snap.


Might be worth a look...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ckw

CAn you tell me is there a difference between the <span id="v4-1"]<span>Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical Lens and the one you've suggested?

---

ckw,


That's the lens. We just didn't go on and onand on and on with all the SP DII Asper etc.... stuff.


USM stands for "Unsharp Mask" and it is a sharpening technique that can easily be done from Photoshop CS# or even Elements.


In CS# it is under Filter/Sharpen you will see "Unsharp Mask" in the menu list. When you open it, there will be a preview box with a 100% zoom that has three settings "Amount, Radius, and Threshold" That is why I listed the figures as (200, .6, 0) Those would be the three values to enter. I find with my 40D that .3-.6 for the radius works really well. A threshold of 0 is fine because you are probably using ISO 100 and the image is clean. All that's left to do is dadjust the Amount. 150 - 300 are common values and you will see a big difference in the sharpness of you image.


That's why I'm saying you may want to hold off on replacing the Sigma 17-70 until you get a chance to work in a little sharpening. Is there anyway that you can post comparison images between you 60 macro and the Sigma 17-70 @60mm? Take two pictures of the same thing, both at f8. You may not need a new lens after all.


Last Note: As I said earlier, Lenses can vary in performance from copy to copy. I tested two copies of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DII when I purchased it and the first one was absolutely terrible. It wasn't a focus issue, it was an optic issue. The lens was terribly soft, even stopped down. The second was very sharp and I'm happy to say still being used today. So, It may be that you do have a bad copy of the 17-70 and need to send it back to Sigma to have it adjusted.


Hope these things help,


Chuck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

USM stands for "Unsharp Mask" and it is a sharpening technique that can easily be done from Photoshop CS# or even Elements.

---

Well, it stands for Ultrasonic Motor or Unsharp Mask, depending on the context. It took me a while to figure out Unsharp Mask, so I really struggled to figure out how a dose of focusing was useful in post processing...

Good One Peety3...........[:D]


Never crossed my mind. Not that it's much to cross! LOL

The suggestion for the Tamron is a good one. I have both the 17-50 f2.8 and the 28-75 f2.8. Both about the same price and quality.The 17-50 min focuse distance is 27cm and the 28-75 is 33cm. Here is an example with my old XT, 28-75 @ 75 and 580EX fill, 50% crop.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/IMG_5F00_0020b.jpg[/img]


Mark

You mentioned that with the close quarters, you have trouble getting everything.


if I understand you correctly, I'd suggest looking at the wide angle stuff and maybe some extension tubes to get the minimum focusing distance down.


You might actually think about a couple of wide angle primes with an extension tube...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

You mentioned that with the close quarters, you have trouble getting everything.


if I understand you correctly, I'd suggest looking at the wide angle stuff and maybe some extension tubes to get the minimum focusing distance down.


You might actually think about a couple of wide angle primes with an extension tube...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Colin, One of the problems extension tubes will cause is a big drop in dof (depth of field). When photographing models you really would rather have the inverse and the only answer there is a Tilt-Shift.


So, we would now like to recommend a 24mm Tilt Shift lens. A used one can be had for around 900 USD. The only problem is that it is not anywhere near your budget.


Another option I have not seen mentioned is a P&amp;S camera. Due to the sensor size and very short focal plane depth, the depth of field is quite large. Does anyone know if a G9 would fit the bill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Colin, One of the problems extension tubes will cause is a big drop in dof (depth of field).

---

I wouldn't put it that way. Focusing at a closer distance causes the drop in DOF. If you don't need to focus close, then the DOF will be the same with or without the extension tube. That's why I wouldn't say that the extension tubes cause a big drop in DOF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

When photographing models you really would rather have the inverse and the only answer there is a Tilt-Shift.

---

Tilt-shift is the a great option. Another great option is focus stacking. The free software for that is great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Another option I have not seen mentioned is a P&amp;S camera. Due to the sensor size and very short focal plane depth, the depth of field is quite large. Does anyone know if a G9 would fit the bill?

---

Small sensors do not have any advantage when it comes to deep DOF. All larger sensor sizes are capable of the same deep DOF as the G9 by just stopping down. The difference in bellows factor is pretty small at the magnifications discussed in this thread (~10% change in DOF). There is no diffraction advantage with the G9 either. With a tripod and longer shutter speeds, the larger sensors will result in far less noise and more dynamic range.

Since the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is already under consideration, I would suggest looking at the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC Macro. It has 1:3 magnification which is a little better than the 1:5 on the Tamron.

What aperature setting are you using with your Sigma? If you stop down enough it seems like it would get to be more acceptable. Have you checked it for front or back focus?

Hi CKW, I also shoot with a 40D and also use the EF-S 60mm, which I agree is tremendously sharp. You are right, it can spoil you when it comes to sharpness. I bought the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 before I really knew what I was doing (not that I do now!), because it was inexpensive and received a lot of positive reviews. I would never part with it now and find that I use it very often, for all kinds of shooting situations. It is a perfect 'portrait zoom,' because it has nice bokeh (ability to generate a blurred background while the subject of interest is in sharp focus in the foreground) and the color saturation (at least on the 40D) is great....a tad toward the warm side, which personally, I like. A lot of people with "crop-sensor" cameras such as the 40D opt for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, because its zoom range "translates" on a crop sensor to a more conventional "all purpose zoom" range of roughly 27-88mm (wide angle-to portrait length). But it sounds like you are looking for a lens with specific qualities, not a general "walk around" zoom. The 28-75 equates to a 45-120mm in full-frame (i.e., 35mm film) terms, which is offbeat; not short enough to give a true wide angle view on the short end, and not long enough to give a true telephoto view on the long end. However-- and to me this is a big 'however'-- the 28-75 is made to cover a full-frame image circle, while the 17-50 is specifically dedicated to the crop format. In other words, you could use the 28-75 on a "full-frame" camera, such as the 5D Mark II or 1Ds Mark III, or a film camera. This means that on a crop sensor camera like the 40D, the 28-75 is utilizing the "sweet spot" (the center, and not the edges) of the image circle of the lens, which on almost all lenses tends to be the area of greatest sharpness. And, with regard to your close-up needs, it has a "macro" designation as well; although it is not a TRUE macro like the 60mm EF-S (which is capable of giving you 1:1 magnification), it gives you a 1-to 3.9 magnification, which is pretty good, and plenty in my experience for excellent close-ups of small objects. Think of it this way...it will give you a field of view approximately twice as wide as the 60mm at its widest zoom setting while being able to focus on objects as little as one foot away. If you think you need a still wider field of view, then go for the Tamron 17-50mm. I haven't used it so can't comment on how it compares to the 28-75 for sharpness, but the reviews have been generally very favorable. Another 3rd-party brand that gets very high marks for sharpness is Tokina; you might want to check out the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8. Good luck!


Catherine


Sorry if I've given you too much detail about things you may already know about, but I think you said you were new to photography....

Chuck, I have the G9 and love it, and your comment about the depth of field on a compact certainly makes sense, but it really doesn't match up to the 60mm EF-S on a 40D for critical sharpness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I wouldn't put it that way. Focusing at a closer distance causes the drop in DOF. If you don't need to focus close, then the DOF will be the same with or without the extension tube. That's why I wouldn't say that the extension tubes cause a big drop in DOF.

---

Daniel, don't get me started again. You know darn well that putting extension tubes on a lense, regardless of its focal lens shortens it's depth of field. Of course it's a function of subject distance. That wasn't the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Tilt-shift is the a great option. Another great option is focus stacking. The free software for that is great

---

Do you have a link? I'd like to check that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

putting extension tubes on a lense, regardless of its focal lens shortens it's depth of field.

---

To me, saying "extension tubes lose DOF" is like saying "race cars cause fast driving". It makes it possible, and that's how most people use them, but it doesn't really cause it, per se. To illustrate:

Fast driving is caused by the driver accelerating to high speeds. Race cars make it possible to achieve high speeds. Another way is stock cars. It's possible to drive race cars and stock cars at normal speeds, but usually people buy them to drive fast.

Losing DOF is caused by focusing close. Extension tubes are just one way to focus close. Another way is to use a macro lens. It's possible to use extension tubes and macro lenses at normal focus distances, but usually people buy them to focus close.

Am I being too pedantic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Do you have a link? I'd like to check that out.

---

CombineZM is the impressive and free stacking software. TuFuse Pro is another good option. Helicon Focus is the easy-to-use commercial software (30-day demo, then $30 to $200). Stacking in Photoshop is much worse than any of those options due to artifacts.

It works best with a focusing rail, but I can get good results even with just the tripod and lens focus ring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

To me, saying "extension tubes lose DOF" is like saying "race cars cause fast driving". It makes it possible, and that's how most people use them, but it doesn't really cause it, per se. To illustrate:

Fast driving is caused by the driver accelerating to high speeds. Race cars make it possible to achieve high speeds. Another way is stock cars. It's possible to drive race cars and stock cars at normal speeds, but usually people buy them to drive fast.

Losing DOF is caused by focusing close. Extension tubes are just one way to focus close. Another way is to use a macro lens. It's possible to use extension tubes and macro lenses at normal focus distances, but usually people buy them to focus close.

Am I being too pedantic?

---

I'd like to say "yes, yes you are". Race cars make it possible to achieve high speeds, but they can still go slow (they have to go slow to stop to fill up, change tires, go slow again before going fast). Extension tubes, on the other hand, FORCE shorter focus distances, and therefore FORCE short DoF. You say it's possible to use extension tubes at normal focus distances, but it's a fact that infinity focus is lost, and I've never left an extension tube on "for the fun of it". The tube is a very limited-purpose tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

Extension tubes, on the other hand, FORCE shorter focus distances, and therefore FORCE short DoF. You say it's possible to use extension tubes at normal focus distances, but it's a fact that infinity focus is lost,

---

True, infinity is lost, but there's still plenty of "normal" focus range.If you focus at 1 meter, put an extension tube on, and focus at 1 meter, DOF is still the same.


Saying that extension tubes lose DOF is putting the emphasis on the wrong thing. No matter what method is used to focus closer, DOF is going to be lost, whether it's a macro lens or extension tubes. The emphasis should be on the fact that closer focus (or higher magnifications) cause a loss in DOF.

Daniel,





I'm curious as to why you'd focus at 1 meter without an extension tube and then put on an extension tube to focus at the exact same distance? The whole purpose of the extension tube would be to allow you to focus closer then the MFD of that lens not at the same distance you just focused at.





Fred~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred Doane

I'm curious as to why you'd focus at 1 meter without an extension tube and then put on an extension tube to focus at the exact same distance?

---

I wouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred Doane

The whole purpose of the extension tube would be to allow you to focus closer then the MFD of that lens not at the same distance you just focused at.

---

Agreed.


My point is that extension tubes don't "cause" thin DOF any more than buying a macro lens causes thin DOF. All types of
magnification causes thin DOF. One method to increase magnification is
to focus closer. One method to focus closer is to use an extension tube.

Wow, I didn't mean to start an argument that seems to not have any actual disagreement [:)] I meant to suggest extension tubes just so that you could focus closer to take pictures of models... close. That way, you can get pictures that get up close (to make small things look bigger) but also don't look like a telephoto close up shot.


You'd certainly have to stop down, but you'd have to do that with a macro lense too. You'll have long exposures too, but she said she's using a tripod. I was just thinking that she likes her Macro, but the 60mm (on 1.6x no less) is contraining the field of view. To get similar quality, it's most cost effective to go with a prime, maybe even two primes, and provide the ability for macro-like magnification without sacrificing the field of view with extension tubes. Changing lenses and adding extension tubes when you need them (and taking them off when you don't) is kind of a hassle, but her subjects aren't exactly moving, and she's got a tripod most of the time anyway. That's my reasoning. I like extension tubes as an option. I think the Kenko ones I got are a good value. I'd prefer to have a 35mm macro lens, but getting 1:1 on a 35mm lens seems to require pretty much touching the subject with the front element anyway.


Point and shoot seems like a good idea, just in that it can be physically smaller, and fit into places, though she's indicated that the quality available in such a scenario isn't what she's looking for.


You could also get extension tubes for a 17-55 f/2.8 as well.


So, yeah, I'd rather have macro abilities native to the lense at the focal length, but sometimes extension tubes just allow you to do what you want to do, i.e., get closer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Am I being too pedantic?

---

If you mean "ostentatiously learned".......Yes.


Sorry, I've been away for a day taking a seminar on lean manufacturing. Boy was that fun!


Your race car analogy was quite interesting. I did some tests. It's all a mute point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

I like extension tubes as an option.

---

Colin, to end all of this hullabaloo about extension tubes, I did a test last night using a 50mm Takumar and a set of M42 extension tubes. I set up my 5D on a tripod and tookphotos of apicture one of my boys had drawn. Thecamera to subject distance was aboutabout 2ft. I took two shots. Onewith the aperture set to f4then f8. Next, I unscrewed the 50 and addedone "10mm" extension tube and screwed the assembly back into the M42 adapter still mounted to the front of the camera. With the lens at infinity I could not get a clear image at f8 or f16.


If you think a wide angle would work better I've got an old 24mm Soligor I can try. Just say the word. Otherwise, when a 10mm extension tube can decrease the infinity focus of a 50mm lens to under two feet, I don't see any practical use of an extension tube in the OP's case. She's looking for an inexpensive wide angle zoom with better IQ than the Sigma 17-70 she already owns. She comes here to ask for advice and the lot of us go off on tangents about extension tubes and depth of field. Her husband makes "models and props" not micro-nano-bugs. I imagine that some of the models and especially the props can be faily large. That's why the OP doesn't have enough room to use the 60mm lens. She needs more "fov" (field of view) not necessarily "dof" (depth of field). Obviously, increased dof comes from increased "fov". So, the most valuable suggestion made so far is the use of free stacking software to increase dof.


Meanwhile, back at the ranch............


ckw,will you follow up with my request from Monday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

That's why I'm saying you may want to hold off on replacing the Sigma 17-70 until you get a chance to work in a little sharpening. Is there anyway that you can post comparison images between your 60 macro and the Sigma 17-70 @60mm? Take two pictures of the same thing, both at f8. You may not need a new lens after all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Your race car analogy was quite interesting. I did some tests. It's all a mute point.

---

*cough* moot point *cough* :-)


Or, as Joey from Friends said, "Moo point..like a cow's opinion--it's moo!""

Thanks Sean.


You say moot..................I say mute......................., it's really boils down to a steaming pile of shoot!! LOL! [;)]


now turn your head and ...........


I'm a really good injinear!! Really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Your race car analogy was quite interesting. I did some tests. It's all a mute point.


.... I did a test last night using a 50mm Takumar and a set of M42 extension tubes. I set up my 5D on a tripod and tookphotos of apicture one of my boys had drawn. Thecamera to subject distance was aboutabout 2ft. I took two shots. Onewith the aperture set to f4then f8. Next, I unscrewed the 50 and addedone "10mm" extension tube and screwed the assembly back into the M42 adapter still mounted to the front of the camera. With the lens at infinity I could not get a clear image at f8 or f16.

---

I'm not sure what this test proves, other that when extension tubes are used to allow focusing closer, they limit the ability of a lens to focus farther away. So what? If you can take the shot without the extension tube, don't use the extension tube. Maybe I was unclear both in what she was asking, and what I was suggesting as a consideration.


From what I understood, she was taking pictures of models. She had said that she didn't have enough room, implying that she needed to be fitting into somewhere, and needed to go wider. I inferred that this meant she might need to get up close. i was thinking on the scale of model trains, legos, etc. If i'm taking wide angle pictures of lego men, I typically want to get closer than 2 feet.


So, my suggestions were, merely for consideration...


a) she might consider a couple of wider angle primes as opposed to a singlezoom, if she wants to get the sharpness of her 60mm prime, and doesn't need the flexibility of instantly changing field of view that comes with a zoom. A 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM would certainly be a nice zoom, but for that much money, you could do other things, particularly since she's using a tripod most of the time, and if these models are inanimate objects, she can change lenses without losing a shot.


b) IF she needs to get closer than these non-macro prime lenses will allow (or for that matter than a zoom will allow), extension tubes are an option that would allow her to do that. If the need arises to move closer, trying to keep the field of view (as opposed to cropping or zooming) I don't know of any other way to achieve that.


You might disagree with my suggestions, and my suggestions may not be the best, but given her situation, as I understand it, they seem perfectly reasonable to me.

Quote:

---

She comes here to ask for advice and the lot of us go off on tangents about extension tubes and depth of field. Her husband makes "models and props" not micro-nano-bugs.

---

I didn't catch any specifics on exactly how big these props were. I imagined trying to make a model aircraft look like it could be a life-size aircraft. If I inferred incorrectly, I'm sorry about that.

Quote:

---

I imagine that some of the models and especially the props can be faily large. That's why the OP doesn't have enough room to use the 60mm lens. She needs more "fov" (field of view) not necessarily "dof" (depth of field). Obviously, increased dof comes from increased "fov". So, the most valuable suggestion made so far is the use of free stacking software to increase dof.

---

I thought that the additional field of view necessary was because she was taking pictures of small things, constrained in small dimensions. Maybe I just went the wrong direction when my brain latched onto 'Macro.' If I misunderstood the application, again, sorry.

Hey Colin,


There is no reason to apologize. Until the OP follows up with us this none of us will be able to give ckw the answer she's looking for. We all have a dendency to assume what the situation is. How else would we have a basis for offering an opinion. I do understand theangle you are coming from. I use to build dioramas. I also had a summer job with a prop makerso I have a general idea that scalemodels can get rather large,from room size if it is a city layout to theatre stage size for set props and scenes.That is why I made the comments I did. My intent was hopefully to get the OP re-engaged and as you are trying to do also, help her find a solution. My intent was not to correct you or your suggestion and if I came across that way then obviously, Istill need to work harder on personal diplomacy when it comes to posting my views. Alot of my response had to do with DB's post on race cars......[:)]That wasthe motivation behind the test.


I just hope that ckw doesn't go spend money on a lens that she doesn't need. I still say the Sigma 17-70 should work fine. If it is under warranty, she should send it in to Sigma and have them fix it. That is the least expensive option. IMHO

CMB, I for one appreciate your level of detail.


CKW, I certainly don't want to steal your thread, but our questions overlap so much I'm hopeful that answers which I receive should help you as well.


This my first post as I'm pretty new to the site and photography in general. Well, in the 70's when things were mostly manual I dabbled. But for the last 20 years it's mostly been point and shoot. A few months ago I bought a used 30D and have been having a ballrelearning. Falling under the heading of "learn as you go" I recently discovered the lens which came on the camera is a POS and needs to be replaced. I'm hopful to find a replacement which not only fills my immediate need of an all around orwalk around lens but one which also becomes the base lens of maybe 2 or 3 in my ultimate stable. I'm thinking that a low zoom range ,low (high?)aperture lens should serve this purpose nicely. Ideally, something which is sharp, lets in a lot of light, has a wide focal range and is high quality. Pretty much any of the low zoom range Canon L series lenses would be perfect, but the price tag is a bit out of my range.Based on my research so far I am looking the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 as well as the Canon 17-40 f4 L. I really like the idea of the Canon, but am concerned that the aperture will be very limiting in low light (indoor) conditions. On the other hand, the Tamron gets great reviews but not quite as great...


Being new and having no hands-on experience with any of this makes it really tough to make a decision. Anyone have any recommendations?


TIA, Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonB

Anyone have any recommendations?

---

JonB, I've tested both.


The 17-40 f4 L is a very nice lens but the copy I had acted more like f4.5. If you like shooting in low natural lightthe slower aperturecould prove to be a hindrance. If you are going to be using your 30D for a while I highly recommend the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. If you haven't already, read Bryans review here. If you think that you may upgrade to full frame in the next six months I'd highly recommend the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Both are excellent lenses for the price. I just purchased the discontinued Canon EF 28-70 f2.8 L and tested it against the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI. I.Q. wise they're almost identical twins. The Canon, as would be expected, has faster, more accurate AF. I like em both!


The tammysare half the price brand new andcome witha six year warranty.

Thanks for the quick and informative reply Chuck. I have absolutely no plans to change camera bodies. This camera has all the features and capabilities I could ever want. I did read Bryans review of the Tamron which is why I'm considering it.


I was also going to consider theTamron 28-75 f2.8, but his review doesn't seem quite as favorable. Or maybe it's just that it didn't make his recommended list. Reading some of your other posts, it does seem like you are a fan. I'll keep my eye's open as I'm pricing things out. I did come across a refurbished Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for approx. $360. Does this seem like a good deal? Is there any downside to refurbished lenses? I have purchased a fair amount of reconditioned things in the past (I assume this is the same)and always been very happy with them. Never camera lenes though. I'm definitley feel as though I'm swimming upstream with all the choices and options.

Yeah, I think Bryan had a bad copy of the 28-75. The guys at slrgear.com apparently had a much better one to test. All I know, is itused to bethe first fast standard zoom of choice and those that have owned and used it give it highly favorable reviews. Now that the 17-50 DII is out, many 1.6X camera users have chosen it as thier first fast zoom. Yes, $360 refurbished is a good price. The onlyproblem I seeis that it probably doesn't include a six year warranty. I'd buy it new. Test it thoroughly, exchange it if it's soft, keep it if it's sharp. It's worth the extra $$. But, before you do,call Tamron and see what their warranty policy is on refurbished lenses. Adorama has one for $389 and I believe they honor it with a 1 year.

I asked about the warranty and it's 3 months. Pretty weak, but I guess it's better than nothing (used). How do you test a lens and know if it's soft or sharp? I don't really have anything to compare it against. Can you send me a link to the one on Adorama? I looked and can't find it. Perhaps it's gone....


Also for a 30D if you were going to own one lens would you go 17-50 or 28-75?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonB

I asked about the warranty and it's 3 months. Pretty weak, but I guess it's better than nothing (used). How do you test a lens and know if it's soft or sharp? I don't really have anything to compare it against. Can you send me a link to the one on Adorama? I looked and can't find it. Perhaps it's gone....


Also for a 30D if you were going to own one lens would you go 17-50 or 28-75?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Daw-gone good question.....I feel like Clack on "Stump the Chump".


Iuse a focus chartand the method discribed on that page to test lenses. I tested my Tamron ata local photography shop before purchase. When the store owner put the images up on the screen for pixel peeping, we both said "What the heck?" The firstcopy was obviously soft. We mounted a second copy and re-ran the test. When those images came up we both said "That's more like it!"That copyappeared to be much sharper. Unfortunately, the "appeared to be much sharper" is rather subjective.


So, the stump part of the equation is what you could use to tell whether or not this newlens would be sharp.Shoota newspaper or the focus chart or a peanut butter jar/can ( I like Jif - though I'm not a choosey mother) with your POS kit lens and the newly aquiredTamron. The results should be staggeringly obvious unless the 18-55EF-S kit lens(I'm guessing here) isn't as bad as all the stuff you've read about it. That requires flare tests and CA tests and other stuff to really show how POS it is. I would say that the Tamrons (either one) should look much sharper than the 18-55 @f8from f8down to f3.2Wide open (f2.8)the centers would look about the same with the corners of the Tamrona tad softer. The only comparison I could make was Bryans ISO charts using the 18-55 II.


I do not know what POs lens you have so answering the last question of which one is hard to do. If you have the 17-85 or 18-55 or what ever, look through your photos witha viewer like Picasa and see what zoom range you most often use. If you favor the wide angle/landscape end then the 17-50 is your choice. If you favor the tele/candid portraitend then the 28-75 is a better choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonB

Can you send me a link to the one on Adorama?

---

Woops, Forgot the Link: http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20347515.html?searchinfo=Tamron+17-50 Now, that's used, not refurbished, so I wouldn't expect any warranty. Sorry bout that.