Another 17-55 2.8 question for owners..

[DB_Cro]

Just tried one used locally, and was wondering if the zooming action on the lens should provide
the same resistance through the whole range or is it different at different lengths?

I hope I'm explaining this correctly. Basically it's easier to turn at the 30-55 range then it is
at 17-30 range. I've never had a lens that's like that.

Also, there seems to be a hair inside, very small, I'll have to see if it shows up on images but I
can clearly see it even in the viewfinder.. it almost looks like a fracture on the glass..
I don't understand how a hair (looks like an eyelash) would not move around when zooming in &
out, blowing in air with that rocket ship or whatever.

Anyways, I didn't buy it.. :-(

 

[jaomul]

A friend bought anew one of these 2 days ago off Amazon uk, they are just over 500 pounds now.

If you are worried about second hand issues have you considered buying a new sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. Its less than half price and supposedly almost as good

 

[DB_Cro]

I own the tamron 17-50 2.8 VC, I've been using it for years, I tried the Sigma, the Canon is the only option, used,
and my concern is the stuff I asked above, got everything else covered.

The alternate plan is a used 24-70 2.8 tamron (which I know is good) and then buy a 10-20 range used when I sell
the Tamron 17-50. The alternate plan is obviously FF friendly but my next camera will probably be APS-C again so..

#decisions

 

[jaomul]

Thats fair enough, I thought you'd asked about IS failing also previously. Is the tamron 17-50 vc not good enough?

 

[DB_Cro]

Yes, I asked about IS and found one that had a faulty IS since then actually.

The Tamron is the softest of the bunch (and the non-VC model) at 2.8-3.5 which is where
I tend to shoot the most since I have a shitty low-ISO body.

I know the 17-55 is overpriced (still) but it should cost me around $150 to upgrade from the Tamron,
and the Canon is fine (to me) even at F/2.8

But the Tamron 24-70VC is bugging me.

 

[goooner]

I own the tamron 17-50 2.8 VC, I've been using it for years, I tried the Sigma, the Canon is the only option, used,
and my concern is the stuff I asked above, got everything else covered.

The alternate plan is a used 24-70 2.8 tamron (which I know is good) and then buy a 10-20 range used when I sell
the Tamron 17-50. The alternate plan is obviously FF friendly but my next camera will probably be APS-C again so..

#decisions

I guess the 24-70 option would be good, if you don't need 2.8 at the wide end. I think the 10-20 is 3.5 iirc.

 

[DB_Cro]

Yes, I could live with that on the 10-20 Sigma, or wait for a used Tokina 11-20 2.8.

That'll end up being shitload of money spent on lenses for the damn T2i (at the moment).

 

[jaomul]

T2i is a good camera. I'm all for buying lenses for what you have now, but if you're def going ff have a think about the best way to spend without wasting money.

 

[DB_Cro]

T2i is a good camera. I'm all for buying lenses for what you have now, but if you're def going ff have a think about the best way to spend without wasting money.

I'm torn, I think I want a 7d markII next but the high ISO capability of the 6D is omg.
I actually need both, lol.

I'm getting great results out of the T2i (my flickr is linked below), I'm all about glass too
so no worries there. I just got the 70-200 2.8..

So.. anyone knows about the 17-55 zoom thing from the original post?