Looking for new lens

[fausto66]

but i really want the vc model cause i hand hold alot of times and i think that would be beneficial or is it?

 

[Goontz]

but i really want the vc model cause i hand hold alot of times and i think that would be beneficial or is it?

It's not nearly as important in this focal range as it is at, say, 200mm. Keep in mind that it's also faster, so you can use the large aperture to help bring the shutter speeds up in lower light. My sigma doesn't have any stabilization and I haven't missed it a single time yet.

That said, stabilization is something that's always nice to have. Just something you have to consider if you want to pay extra for it in this case and weigh the benefits.

 

[fausto66]

mmmm im losing my mind over this trying to decide......

 

[potownrob]

i would just try one of them and see if you like it. you can always return or resell the lens if you don't like it. there are stores and online websites you can rent lenses from too, to try them out. i would recommend trying the Tamron 17-50 VC first since I think you will be able to take advantage of the VC, but you could also try the others first to see if they do the job for you.

 

[fausto66]

ya i gotta do something soon .....thx

 

[PatrickCheung]

if it counts for anything i previously owned the sigma 17-70mm you're talking about. it's got a mighty nice range, but i found that it had a LOT of trouble focusing... especially with a moving subject (flowers in the wind was what i had most trouble with...) and it has a LOT of trouble focusing on things with little contrast... and it was also slow to focus.

if you're shooting a moving subject, you have to move with it, or else it might move out of the focus area before the lens finishes focusing, and starts focusing on something that was in the subject's place. this was super frustrating when i tried to get flower shots.

not gonna lie, i think my nikon kit lens performed better than it when it came to focusing. the lens wasn't extremely sharp either. maybe around the same level as my kit lens? i dont know if it's just 'cause i missed the focus... but it seemed a little less sharp than the kit lens at times.

maybe i just got a faulty lens, but i returned it for the tamron 28-75/2.8... i love it. it's been on my camera 90% of the time after i got it. it has a decent but awkward range, but i barely shoot at anything under 24mm anyway. the constant aperture was a plus for me.

the 28-75 is a pretty damn sharp lens too... when stopped down to around f4-5.6... it doesn't focus as nicely as the kit lens (most 3rd party lenses don't focus as well as original manufacturer lenses though), but it has a lot less troubles than the sigma. it's lighter than the sigma, smaller than the sigma... but doesnt feel as durable as the sigma.

i've heard great things about the 17-50/2.8 from tamron, but i've never tried it... the 28-75 works fine for me :] but that's only 'cause i don't really shoot at focal lengths under 24mm... the range might be awkward for a lot of people.

anyway... hope this helped, happy shooting :]

 

[cassio]

I have the Tamron 17-50 without the VC and I'm quite happy with it. The focal length is quite short so you don't need VC that much. Here are other Fast Mid-Zoom options.

For sports, I would recommend Fast Tele Zoom, but they can be very expensive.

 

[djacobox372]

not so much into macro work really just mainly for a walk around lens and some decent everyday photography since i have other lens for other purposes

As a walk around lens I'd suggest a tamron 28-75 f2.8... wide angle is overrated and abused, unless you're shooting a lot of interiors.

 

[icassell]

As a walk around lens I'd suggest a tamron 28-75 f2.8... wide angle is overrated and abused, unless you're shooting a lot of interiors.

I would humbly disagree:

10-20mm.com

 

[potownrob]

As a walk around lens I'd suggest a tamron 28-75 f2.8... wide angle is overrated and abused, unless you're shooting a lot of interiors.

I would humbly disagree:

10-20mm.com

if the OP has a 70-200/2.8 and the nifty fifty, something that covers the wider end would probably help him more than a 28-75 or similar lens. i can't imagine him not wanting the wider end at all, though the ultra wide end (like 10-22) he might be okay without...it sounds like an 18-50 or 17-50 lens would help fill the gap.