Looking for a sharp zoom *help? please?*

[ckw]

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!

[Jarhead5811]

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

[Sean Setters]

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....

[Chuck Lee]

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

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

[Jarhead5811]

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

[Chuck Lee]

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

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

[Sean Setters]

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.

[ckw]

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).

[Sean Setters]

<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.

[ckw]

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!