Opinions Welcomed on Third Party Lenses...

Hello TDP-ers.


I'll try to make this as sweet as possible.


I have narrowed down the list of candidates to 3 lenses in purchasing/preference order:


1. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF


The above lens faired well against the other two in this list and Henrys.ca pricing is $470.00+taxes. The proof is in the pudding, Bryan's review and this review gave this particular lens a passing mark on a price vs performance standpoint. The knock against this lens would be the so called *loud* AF motor and some CA at 17mm.


2.Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom Lens


The above lens is fairly new and honestly speaking I like Sigma. This lens is listed at Henrys.ca for $879+taxes, however I've read mixed reviews here and here. I like the fact that it has OS and comparable to the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM - don't they all - LOL!


3. Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM


Let's face it, this is the lens that all others are compared against in this focal range - the defacto! And though I would not disagree with others, where IQ is concerned, I do have reservations about the design and the premium pricing for this glass. Henrys.ca has this listed for $1299. As for the design, I must apologize but I do not like the so called trombone design. I had the 28-135 and though the glass was satisfactory the lens barrel did suck in dust - not much, but I found myself removing the front element to clean behind it every now and then.


I'm leaning towards my first entry, theTamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF not only of the price (half of the Sigma and a 1/3 of the Canon) but because the IQ at this price range. I have spent some good coin on the 24-105 and the 70-200 2.8 MII but with our Italy trip booked for 2 weeks and the cost incurred for that trip, I need to budget where I can. The Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom Lens would be perfect but I cannot fathom the idea of spending near $1000. TheCanon 17-55 2.8 IS USM is out of my price range.


As for opinions, anyone out there in TDP world that has this particular lens and if possible, can you please provide images and opinions on this glass?


In typical fashion, thanks.


*edit* - fixed the links.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elmo_2006

I have spent some good coin on the 24-105 and the 70-200 2.8 MII but with our Italy trip booked for 2 weeks and the cost incurred for that trip, I need to budget where I can

---

One thing. What's the deal here. You have some fine lenses. Can't/won't you take the lenses you already have?


Jan

The focal range he

Hi Emilio,


So, you have the 24-105mm f/4L IS, and looking at your profile you also have a Sigma 10-20mm lens. That begs the question, why a 17-xx f/2.8 zoom? Jan seems to be thinking along these lines, too. I agree with Sean that the 17-55mm range is the best range for a general purpose zoom lens on a crop body. But you have that range already covered with the 10-20mm + 24-105mm. Granted, it means a lens change. But would you take only the 17-xx and the 70-200mm on your trip? Personally, I would not carry both my 24-105mm and my 17-55mm for use on one body - too much overlap. Plus, while 17mm is wide, on a crop body it's not ultrawide, so you'll probably want the 10-20mm along anyway.


Just thinking, there may be better ways to spend that $. If you wanted f/2.8 for the aperture, you might consider another fast prime (Sigma 30mm f/1.4, for example), or the Canon 85mm f/1.8. Alternatively, you might even consider a body upgrade - there are now 3 generations and a lot of technological improvement between your XSi and the current T3i. Looking at Bryan's noise comparisons, ISO 3200 on the T3i, when downsized to match the resolution of the XSi, has about the same level of noise as ISO 1600 on the XSi. So, if your main reason for wanting the 17-xx zoom is f/2.8 vs. f/4 in a walkaround lens, you might just be better off getting that stop with ISO instead of aperture, with a lot of features added as well.


Now, if it's a question of only being able to bring two lenses, then a 17-xx + 70-200mm are a great combination, better than starting at 24mm for your 2-lens kit. But if you can carry 3 lenses, I'd say 10-20mm + 24-105mm + 70-200mm would be at least as good as10-20mm + 17-xx + 70-200mm. While I agree that for the money, the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC provides the best optics for you buck, personally, I really like the benefit of IS, especially for travel where there is not always time to carry and set up a tripod, and for that reason I think you'd be better off with the 24-105mm, assuming you can bring the 10-20mm to cover the ultrawide-to-wide end.


--John

For what it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

i don't know what all of Tamron's letter abbreviations means but this has image stabilization at least.

---

VC = vibration compensation = IS. Reportedly (including in Bryan's reviews), the non-VC version of the Tamron 17-50mm has substantially better IQ than the VC version, which I suspect is why the non-VC version is at the top of Emilio's list.

Hi Jan...


This is another topic all together. I may need to make some sacrifices or I may end up taking the whole collection, I have not decided yet.

I know what the VC stands for ...it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

...it's the rest of the letters in the OP I wasn't sure about.

---

Here's the Tamron 'dictionary'.


Emilio, it looks like you might just need a bigger camera bag... [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Hi Emilio,


So, you have the 24-105mm f/4L IS, and looking at your profile you also have a Sigma 10-20mm lens. That begs the question, why a 17-xx f/2.8 zoom? Jan seems to be thinking along these lines, too. I agree with Sean that the 17-55mm range is the best range for a general purpose zoom lens on a crop body. But you have that range already covered with the 10-20mm + 24-105mm. Granted, it means a lens change. But would you take only the 17-xx and the 70-200mm on your trip? Personally, I would not carry both my 24-105mm and my 17-55mm for use on one body - too much overlap. Plus, while 17mm is wide, on a crop body it's not ultrawide, so you'll probably want the 10-20mm along anyway.


Just thinking, there may be better ways to spend that $. If you wanted f/2.8 for the aperture, you might consider another fast prime (Sigma 30mm f/1.4, for example), or the Canon 85mm f/1.8. Alternatively, you might even consider a body upgrade - there are now 3 generations and a lot of technological improvement between your XSi and the current T3i. Looking at Bryan's noise comparisons, ISO 3200 on the T3i, when downsized to match the resolution of the XSi, has about the same level of noise as ISO 1600 on the XSi. So, if your main reason for wanting the 17-xx zoom is f/2.8 vs. f/4 in a walkaround lens, you might just be better off getting that stop with ISO instead of aperture, with a lot of features added as well.


Now, if it's a question of only being able to bring two lenses, then a 17-xx + 70-200mm are a great combination, better than starting at 24mm for your 2-lens kit. But if you can carry 3 lenses, I'd say 10-20mm + 24-105mm + 70-200mm would be at least as good as10-20mm + 17-xx + 70-200mm. While I agree that for the money, the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC provides the best optics for you buck, personally, I really like the benefit of IS, especially for travel where there is not always time to carry and set up a tripod, and for that reason I think you'd be better off with the 24-105mm, assuming you can bring the 10-20mm to cover the ultrawide-to-wide end.


--John

---

Hi John...


Our itinerary will include, Rome, Florence, Pisa, Venice and Paris. My concern would be available lighting conditions as we tour the Vatican, The Coliseum and other sites such as museums etc.


The 17-xx would replace the 24-105 for those light limiting situations where a faster aperture would be required over the use of a flash however I will have my monopod with me.


In essence I would use the 17-xx 2.8 for internal photos where space/lighting is at a premium, the Sigma 10-22 for the those wide-angle shots outdoor/indoors (where lighting is available), the 24-105 as a walk-around lens and the 70-200 for those candid street shots of the *natives*. There is a good but sad chance that I may just leave the 24-105 or 70-200 at home - sniff-sniff!


10-20mm + 17-xx + 70-200mm may be the choice.


As for body upgrades, I have not yet determined if I want to go 5D or 7D - still on the fence about this one. I'll deal with that decision when the time comes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elmo_2006

My concern would be available lighting conditions as we tour the Vatican, The Coliseum and other sites such as museums etc.


The 17-xx would replace the 24-105 for those light limiting situations where a faster aperture would be required over the use of a flash however I will have my monopod with me.

---

In that case, I'd probably have to recommend against the 17-50mm non-VC, or at least remind you that the 24-105mm would still have the advantage in the situations you describe, as long as 24mm was wide enough. The 24-105mm has a 3-stop IS, meaning it's got a 2-stop advantage over f/2.8, as long as your subject(s) aren't moving. Especially if your subjects aren't moving, the ability with IS to use a longer shutter speed with a narrower aperture can be a real help for interiors such as you'll find at the Vatican, where those large chambers have substantial depth that you'll blur out shooting at f/2.8. The big, heavy 70-200 II can be a lot to carry, but I'm really glad I brought mine to China. I definitely think you'll want something longer than 50/55mm (105mm might be enough on a crop body, though). My initial thought was that the 70-200mm would be useful for those candid street shots - and it was - but in addition, it's great for detail shots of architecture, allowing you to capture some of the history of Italy in a different way. Here are a couple of shots from my China trip which made me glad I brought the 70-200mm.



[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/5514101453/in/set-72157626236227536/lightbox/]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5093/...ee78710550.jpg[/url]
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS II USM @ 190mm, 1/200 s, f/25, ISO 250



[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/5515130914/in/set-72157626112302225/lightbox/]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5135/...ff9faa9991.jpg[/url]
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS II USM @ 200mm, 1/400 s, f/4, ISO 100

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Emilio, it looks like you might just need a bigger camera bag...

---

Lol, I'm taking inventory at this moment, and I'm perusing the *inter-tubes* for either a backpack or hipster or something....egad, talk about a domino effect!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elmo_2006

Lol, I'm taking inventory at this moment, and I'm perusing the *inter-tubes* for either a backpack or hipster or something....egad, talk about a domino effect!

---

Yep. The LowePro Flipside 300 is one to consider. It will hold a body with 70-200mm f/2.8, plus two more lenses and a flash, with the necessary accessories. Comfortable, and I really like that the Flipsides open from the 'front' (the side that rests against your back), which is more secure in a crowded, urban setting. I also like that you can spin it around to use as a lens changing platform, without having to take the bag off and set it on the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elmo_2006

My concern would be available lighting conditions as we tour the Vatican, The Coliseum and other sites such as museums etc.


The 17-xx would replace the 24-105 for those light limiting situations where a faster aperture would be required over the use of a flash however I will have my monopod with me.

---

In that case, I'd probably have to recommend against the 17-50mm non-VC, or at least remind you that the 24-105mm would still have the advantage in the situations you describe, as long as 24mm was wide enough. The 24-105mm has a 3-stop IS, meaning it's got a 2-stop advantage over f/2.8, as long as your subject(s) aren't moving. Especially if your subjects aren't moving, the ability with IS to use a longer shutter speed with a narrower aperture can be a real help for interiors such as you'll find at the Vatican, where those large chambers have substantial depth that you'll blur out shooting at f/2.8. The big, heavy 70-200 II can be a lot to carry, but I'm really glad I brought mine to China. I definitely think you'll want something longer than 50/55mm (105mm might be enough on a crop body, though). My initial thought was that the 70-200mm would be useful for those candid street shots - and it was - but in addition, it's great for detail shots of architecture, allowing you to capture some of the history of Italy in a different way.

---

Hmmmm, interesting point, definitely something to think about. Maybe the 500 smacks could be spent better somewhere else!

I know this isn't likely to affect your ranking of the Canon, since it's still expensive, but Henry's is almost the most expensive place in North America to purchase that lens. You can save about $150 by ordering from Camera Canada. See here.


As a general rule, I've noticed Canon's products tend to be significantly cheaper to purchase from the US, (example of 85mm f/1.8),but Tamron is often cheaper in Canada( example of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.) I don't know what the Canon Canada logic on pricing is. Their "gouge Canada" approach has led me purchasing everything, aside from a replacement lens cap, from the US. Batteries are half price. Lenses can be hundreds of dollars cheaper. Bodies are usually cheaper.

OOOPS!


I owe everyone an apology or at least Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM owners. I was under the impression (must be lack of caffeine) that said lens is of the trombone type whereby my initial commentary should have indicated *double* but either way incorrect information.


The Drama continues...


Would it make sense to sell the Sigma 10-20 and possibly splurge on the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM whereby saving myself the 600 over the Canon? Again my concerns are deeply rooted in confined *quarters* and available light and let

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elmo_2006

Would it make sense to sell the Sigma 10-20 ... my concerns are deeply rooted in confined *quarters*

---

Maybe, maybe not. On the left is a shot cropped to the FOV of 17mm on your XSi (27mm equivalent on FF). On the left is the original shot at theequivalent of 10mm on your XSi (16mm on a 5DII).


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/16vs27mm.jpg[/img]


Both are nice shots, I think, but they tell a different story. Especially in tight spaces, sometimes you need that ultrawide. In the temple above, there wasn't much room to back up and achieve the shot I wanted (i.e. a shot without a crowd of tourists in the foreground).

I used to own the VR version of the Tamron 17-50. After using AF Microadjustment with my 50D +Tamron, photos were sharp even when shooting wide open; if the non-VR version is sharper than this, then you won

I have the non VR Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and am perfectly happy with it on my 7D. Images are sharp wide open, build is good, AF is pretty fast and the lens is relatively light and small compared to the Canon 17-55. Yes, the AF is a bit noisy, but it works well.


For shots in a European city, the 17-24mm range would be useful. That being said, neuro has a point that the 24-105

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

AF is pretty fast

---

I also have the non-VC version of Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I agree on all points pointed out by thekingb, except I whole heartedly disagree that AF is fast (at least in certain conditions)


Especially in somewhat low light condition you are looking to shoot in, the AF will "jump" initially, and then "fine-tune" with smaller jerky motor movements. In decent light the initial "jump" will get you dead on focus relatively quickly, but the smaller fine-tuning takes about 5 seconds (no exaggeration). And that feels like an etttteeeeeerrrrrrnnnnnnaaaaaatyyyyyyy, because you can't pull the shutter until it completes [:(] I usually just end up using my 70-200mm f/4L, and the "fishing rate" is dramatically lower. Plus you also sound like Robocop when it's fishing for focus. It's THAT loud [;)]


But other than that, I absolutely love this little lens!!

@Takahiro: I

...after much deliberation and *mulling* I

I would suggest the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for those dimly lit indoor spaces since you have everything else very nicely covered with 10-20 + 24-105 + 70-200. Or saving for a new body might be another good choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

But I just remembered my real gripe with the lens: the zoom ring rotates the Nikon way, not the Canon way! My little brain can't keep that straight.

---

thekingb, I was just cleaning and prepping my lenses for todays shoot and I just now realized that you are right!! It IS backwards!! Hahaha


The Tamron is pretty much the only lens that I typically use manual (in low light as you said, and video), so I never knew!! I just thought Canon was built that way as well, but apparently not after trying manual focusing on my 70-200mm f/4L and 50mm f/1.8II [:P] Ooops haha