Opinions Welcomed on Third Party Lenses...

[elmo_2006]

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.

[Sheiky]

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

[Sean Setters]

The focal range he

[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

[ddt0725]

For what it

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[elmo_2006]

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.

[ddt0725]

I know what the VC stands for ...it

[neuroanatomist]

...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]

[elmo_2006]

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.