F/2.8 Lens Ideas?

Okay... I bought the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. Between that and the similar Canon, I figured paying $370 was a better choice at the moment than paying $1,300 for the Canon. The reviews of this lens are excellent, and I am confident in my buy. The Sigma comes with a lens hood, which would have cost extra.

Thanks for all the help! :thumbup:
 
Don't hunt me down if the lens turns out to be a dud! :) Not sure what sort of IQ you are after. As you can see from my inventory, this lens has got a lot to live up to in my book. But hey, I really don't use wide-angle that much so another "L" is out of the question.........for now. Baby, were going to live on Food Stamps!!!
 
No, don't worry.. i wont come after you. However, I will come after the 53 out of 54 people who rated this lens with 5 stars
 
I've heard good things about that lens, and considering it's like 1/3 of the price of the Canon...it's a good deal. I still think it's a bit of an awkward focal length on a 'crop' camera...but that's my personal taste.
 
I've heard good things about that lens, and considering it's like 1/3 of the price of the Canon...it's a good deal. I still think it's a bit of an awkward focal length on a 'crop' camera...but that's my personal taste.

Big Mike, did you start out shooting w/ film? I have heard a lot of people say that this angle is weird for 'crop' cameras. However, I don't seem to mind it. Maybe that's cause I started on a digital???

When I had the 28-105, it was a fine angle (for my purposes so far...but i'm used to a 70-200). There was one time that I whipped out my stock lens to get the 18mm. [http://www.w3bolivar.com/img/kevinCamaroWeb.jpg]

But probably within the next 6 months, I'll be after a good wide-angle lens. Maybe it'll be the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the Sigma 18-50 2.8 that you mentioned in a previous post. Then I'll end up with a full range of 2.8 glass. That would be super, and would be fairly inexpensive (relatively speaking) :thumbup:
 
Yeah the only bummer is the 24mm on the wide end. But there is no high quality glass that covers from 16-70mm. I will eventually pick up the 16-35 f/2.8 L if needed, maybe event the 17-40 f/4 L. Ho hum.
 
I haven't been disappointed in my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 at all. Great bargain at $300 USD. I'm happy right now with my two lenses and am saving up to either upgrade my 17-50 to the 24-70L or upgrade my 70-200 from f/4 to the 2.8 non-IS. I was trying the 24-70 out in my local camera shop, and I don't think I'll miss the difference between the 17 and 24 on the wide end.
 
I have been most satisfied with my zoom lens lineup in both quality and coverage for my 30D. My three zooms are as follows.

EF-S 10-22mm. (L Quality glass IMO)
EF 24-70mm f2.8L
EF 70-200mm f2.8L

With these three lenses I can cover from 10mm to 200mm with a gap of 2mm between the first two with no overlap at all. If I move to full frame I will keep the 30D so the 10-22 will not go to waste. All my other lenses are Canon EF lenses, some L and some not. ( Just can't see spending $1,200 for the 50mm f1.2. I will keep my 1.4)

As for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. I owned it and loved it. It was a great piece of glass and very sharp. I got to shoot a buddies 24-70 and fell in love/lust with the "brick" so I sold off my Tammy and bought the Canon. It was a great lens though and was almost always on my camera.
 
What's your budget and quality expectation?

The best lens in this range is probably the Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS...but it's expensive. Then there is the EF 16-35mm F2.8 L...which is also expensive but it's a 'full frame' EF lens and can be used as an ultra wide angle lens on film or full frame digital. Plus, it's an L lens...which means top quality and a cool red ring :D
There is also the 17-40 F4 L....not F2.8 but a good lens.

There is the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 F2.8. Both are about the same price and much cheaper than the Canon 17-55. They don't have the Canon's IS...and maybe not the same image quality...but they are much better than the kit lens. The Canon also has a USM focus motor which is fast and silent.

I went with the Tamron because it seemed to get slightly better reviews than the Sigma. I love it, it's a great lens. I would, however, upgrade to the Canon if I had the funds. Specifically for the IS and the USM focus.

I've read multiple stories of people actually selling their 16-35 and getting the 17-40, which is one of the reasons I decided to get the latter. People say that the 17-40 is sharper wide open, which doesnt surprise me. It takes a lot of optics to get f2.8 to work on a zoom that wide. Dont take my word for it though. The reviews I'm talking about were on fredmiranda.
 
I've read multiple stories of people actually selling their 16-35 and getting the 17-40, which is one of the reasons I decided to get the latter. People say that the 17-40 is sharper wide open, which doesnt surprise me. It takes a lot of optics to get f2.8 to work on a zoom that wide. Dont take my word for it though. The reviews I'm talking about were on fredmiranda.

Fredmiranda review of the 24-70 f2.8L (9.3)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=5&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

Fredmiranda reveiw of hte 17-40 f4L (9)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

Seems like Fred rates the 24-70 higher than the 17-40.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top