Lens dilemma

Photog38 · Jul 12, 2007

Ok, heres my dilemma. I will be buying my first lens someday in the near future and I want to get a good one. Most people have been saying that I should get a wide angle zoom. I was originally looking at the Canon 28-135mm lens, but some say that might not be wide enough on a 1.6 body. So then I started to consider the 17-85mm. Both of these lenses have IS, which is a good thing, but the 17-85mm is a little slower than the 28-135mm. I know that the 17-55mm is f/2.8, but that is a little out of my budget; I would prefer not to spend much more than the 17-85mm costs (not yet

) . Then I started looking at third party lenses. I found the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. How does the Tamron and the Sigma stack up to the Canon? Would I be sacrificing image quality by not going with Canon? I dont want to spend more than $500 just yet, but I do want to get a lens that I will happy with. Any ideas anyone? Thanks. :wink:

ZyCzech · Jul 12, 2007

I'm not sure how many lenses you are planning on buying, but a nice multipurpose lens could work for you if you only want one. By this I mean a 28-200mm or something of the sort.

Canon makes the EF 28-200mm II USM, and the cheapest I could find it was $340 ish. Sigma and Tamron make their equivalents for about the same price.

I am a pro by no means, but I hope this helps.

Sw1tchFX · Jul 12, 2007

I've heard that the tamron is junk, and the tamron 17-50 is better than the sigma 17-50.

Just the the 17-85 and be happy, IS is a great thing.

Photog38 · Jul 12, 2007

Sw1tchFX said:
Just the the 17-85 and be happy, IS is a great thing.

So even though the 28-135mm is a little faster than the 17-85mm, the exchange for speed is not worth the wider angle? I have gone into the stores and looked through the 28-135mm and the 18-55mm (equivilant wide angle of the 17-85mm), and see how it would be kind of nice to have a wider angle lens. Especially if this is the only lens I have for a while (except maybe for the 50mm f/1.8). The only thing I don't care for is that the 17-85mm costs more than the 28-135mm.

chrisk121 · Jul 12, 2007

Its slow, but sigma makes an 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS. It's for canon with non full frame sensors only. And it has sigma's equivalent to IS (OS or Optical Stabilization).

http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3324&navigator=6

soylentgreen · Jul 12, 2007

What lens do you have now? Your choice of next lens should be based on what type of photos you plan on taking and what your standard of image quality is. For sports, action, and low light you would prefer a faster lens in the f/2.8 range. Outdoor, nature stuff I can handle with f/4. In my experience and research, there is no one lens that will cover everything from wide to telephoto. I agree with Switch in that IS is great, especially for slower lenses in low light and long focal lengths. The EF-S 17-85 is a great lens for the price. Just a tad slow in AF in low light. I just ordered a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 because the Canon version is $1200. Ouch. Would prefer a little wider, but there is no such thing in that range that I would be happy with. As you can see from my current inventory, I am a little spoiled by the "L"s. Tamron got good reviews on their 17-50 f/2.8. That was the other lens I was looking at, but I really wanted to fill in the gap from wide-angle to the 70-200 so I only have to tote around two lenses on most occasions. Also cannot justify spending over a grand on a lens that will probably not get that much use. I mostly shoot wildlife right now. Hope this helps.

Big Mike · Jul 13, 2007

I will also recommend the 17-85 IS, over the 28-135 IS. Don't worry that it's slightly slower...the difference is negligible. Also, it's got a newer version of IS, which should give you an extra stop of hold-ability. I personally don't find it slow to AF...it may not be great in low light...but it's got Canon's USM focus, which is rather fast and quite.

I have that lens, however, I still went and got the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. For me, having a max (and consistent) aperture of F2.8 was more important than IS or the extra reach. IS, is a great feature but it won't do a thing to help you freeze subject movement in lower light.

Photog38 · Jul 13, 2007

So far, I do not own any lenses. I am looking for a good, all purpose lens. I would really like to have the canon 100mm macro, but that may limit me some. What I mean is, if I only have one lens for a while (I may not have the money for another lens for a while), shouldn't I get a zoom(?) At least that's what I understand from what others have been saying, but maybe I shouldn't worry so much about it. I have really been enjoying macro with my canon S2 IS, and I would like to expand my capabilities. What I'm afraid of is when (if) I get that 100mm, I might enjoy it, but soon feel limited by only having one focal length. That is why I cant decide between a zoom (like the 28-135mm or 17-85mm) or a prime (like the 100mm macro).
So, should I stick with a zoom (like the 17-85mm) or go with a prime (like the 100mm macro)? Even though I enjoy macro, should I get a zoom first and then, maybe a year later, get the macro?

Sw1tchFX · Jul 13, 2007

get somethign that starts out at at least 18mm, It's critical for landscape.

soylentgreen · Jul 14, 2007

Some of the zoom lenses have "Macro Mode" built in if that is your concern. They are just not dedicated Macro lenses like the 100 f/2.8. With the ef 17-85 IS you can focus down to about 17" or so. I have gotten decent macro results with it. I know the Sigma I just ordered had "macro" in the title also and can focus down to 14". There are also extension tubes you can add to shorten the working distance on your standard lens. Just probably won't get the shallow DOF that the macro lenses provide.