Opinions Welcomed on Third Party Lenses...

[neuroanatomist]

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/][/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/][/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

[elmo_2006]

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!

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[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!

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[elmo_2006]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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).

[acmojica]

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

[thekingb]

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

[TakahiroW4047]

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!!