Printable View
Hello All
I am looking at purchasing a new lens and have an upper limit of around £600. I currently own a 450D with the 18-55mm kit lens and I have a 70-200mm f4L lens. I want a lens for landscape and cityscape photography and am not getting enough use of the 70-200 (may sell). I have been recommended the following:
17-40mm f4L
24-105mm f4L
I'm stumped which one or others would be best and would appreciate some help, also if sigma, tamron offer any good ones?
Thanks very much
Edd
Landscape and Cityscape? You can't go wrong with this: the EF-S 15-85mm http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-S-1.../dp/B002NEFLDM
The 24-105mm won't be wide enough for a lot of landscape shots on the 450D, and the 17-40mm I don't think gives enough zoom range.
The Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 non-IS is highly regarded too.
+1 for ham's response.
I'm learning well. Probably something you said to me when I asked the same question 14months ago.
+1 for the EF-S 15-85, I'm another happy owner.
The EF-S 17-55 is another great walkaround lens on your camera, but more expensive.
With the tamron being less than half the price of the canon 17-55 does the image quality suffer a lot?Quote:
Originally Posted by ham
FOrgot to add above, but to be clear the Tamron is 17-50mm, not -55mm. You lose a little IQ, but not too much. You do lose IS, obviously, and the IQ of the Tamron 17-50mm VC (their version of IS) is worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0051m
Image is great. Just doesn't have any stabilization built into it. The focus motor is louder than the Canon version too. You won't lose any money buying it and then reselling later when you taste/budget change.
15-85mm would be a great lens for your application, the 17-55mm would be my next choice. I don't care for the 17-40mm or 24-105mm for 1.6, the first lacks the long end and second lacks the wide end. Besides that the IQ is not that good wide open (in many focal lengths worst than your kit lens) and ok to decent stopped down to f/5.6-f/8, see ISO 112233 crops. IMO the 15-85mm or 17-55mm are much better lenses for 1.6 users.
John.
Thanks for your help, do you have any thoughts on the tamron 17-50 f2.8, the more I see the price the better it looks!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGass
If you get a good copy of this lens, it is really fantastic. I've had two. One of them, which I bought for my school and don't get to use anymore, has great IQ, color, contrast and sharpness -- all for a fraction of the price of other f/2.8 general purpose lenses. The second one I bought (for myself personally) stunk it up. There was some sort of major focus/sharpness problem, and I promptly returned it. I believe others have had similar experiences with this lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0051m
If you buy from a reputable dealer with an easy, "no questions asked" return policy, I wouldn't hesitate to give it a try.
Is this obvious to tell? Sorry to be dumb just want to get it right!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
You can get a good copy of the 18-55mm kit lens, for example, and its "best" isn't good enough for many people. There are plenty of lenses out there whose best quality doesn't pass muster for the discerning photographer. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is one of those lenses that CAN pass with flying colors, but only if you get a good one. Tamron has had some quality control issues with that lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0051m
The Tamron is a very good value, it's not quite as good at certain focal lengths but at other it's just as good. The build is not as good, the AF is noisy and quality control can sometimes be a pain. But other than that it's a good lens.
It sounds like you haven't taken a look at Bryan's (owner of this site) ISO 112233 crops, they are 100% crops of lenses so you can get a acurate idea of the sharpness and other qualities. Here is the link that compares these two lenses http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0.
Hope this helps,
John.
Also been recommended the sigma 10-20mm for landscapes and cityscapes. What your thoughts?