Lense Questions?

littlenomad · May 4, 2013

I have been shooting with my Canon 600d for approx 1 yr +. I have a Sigma 18-200mm 3.5f which I hardly use because I don't like the quality and a 50mm 1.8 (which I use loads!!).
I am wanting a zoom lense, with a 2.8 f and some kind of zoom but not as much as the Sigma. My friend is selling his Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for half the price of new. But there does appear to be a bit of dust in the lense, something I read shouldn't be a problem?

But even at half price the Canon is still pricey and I was looking at the Tamron 27-70mm 2.8. Also stabilized but offering a little more zoom then the Canon. I take mostly photos of people/kids. A little bit of landscape but not much. I would love the Canon 70-200mm of course but the price and the huge size doesn't really make it viable.

My friend is also selling his 7d, also tempting although we are flying through Hong Kong next month and I could pick one up there for approx $1500 (NZ) and he wants $1100. Reason I am thinking about the 7d is focus points and ISO mainly. Plus speed. Or am I overreaching?

I know there are so many variables. I suppose I am feeling a little confused and as a relative newbie I am struggling to figure out shelf life, pros and cons etc.

Thoughts?

Stacylouwho · May 4, 2013

I would say if you want and can get a decent lens at half the price, I would go for it! See if he will let you try it out and if its what you are looking for! Or.... you could save for a really nice one that you know you want! If you don't like your options at the moment. I know what you mean about the 7d.. I am totally there! My t3i just dosn't cut it with high iso situations. I really want a new one, but will have to wait till the funds come round!

Benco · May 4, 2013

Are you thinking of retrofitting the Canon lens on your D600? I understand that you need an adaptor with corrective optics to do that and that it's not worth it.
The Tamron 27-70 should give better IQ than the Sigma 18-200, on paper it's superior, classic 3X zoom continuous aperture design so it should wipe the floor with the 11X Sigma.

As for the 7D...well it sounds like you're not too committed yet to either Nikon or Canon. Once you have some quality glass then that will change, unless you want (or can afford) to duplicate lenses in the two sytems you really need to choose one or the other.

littlenomad · May 4, 2013

Sorry, I should have said Canon 600d. Sticking to Canon.

Benco · May 4, 2013

littlenomad said:
Sorry, I should have said Canon 600d. Sticking to Canon.

Ah, that makes more sense. Scratch most of my answer then.

SCraig · May 4, 2013

There is a world of difference in shooting with a 200mm lens (or any tele lens) and a 50mm lens. The longer the lens the less forgiving it is to camera motion. Sigma makes some excellent lenses, I have two of them that I use extensively and would not willingly give up. While 18-200 is a rather extreme zoom ratio (I don't like zooms that go much past 4:1) you should be getting acceptable images from that lens. If not I'd recommend taking a long hard look at your technique and if that doesn't solve the problem look into getting it aligned.

Derrel · May 4, 2013

Dust inside of lenses is generally NOT an issue that has any real-world impact. I would run to buy a 17-55 at half-price. DEFINITELY, try and get that lens!!!!

TCampbell · May 4, 2013

I'd go with the Canon EF-S 17-55 on your 600D. The Tamron 24-70 (I noted you typed 27-70 but assume you mean the 24-70) wont seem to have much "wide" angle to it on a crop-frame body. A 17-55 and a 24-70 are basically crop-frame / full-frame counterparts. The cover _very_ similar angles of view if you use the 17-55 on a crop-frame body and a 24-70 on a full-frame body (they're not exact... just similar.) It's a good general-purpose working range and having an f/2.8 zoom is _very_ nice.

hirejn · May 4, 2013

How do you know it's not your technique that's resulting in degraded image quality from the 18-200? Any lens should be able to take great pictures if you know how to get the most out of it. Equipment is just a tool. It's incapable on its own of producing either good or bad photography. I'd say 50% is a significant discount and if you think the lens is good, when else are you going to get 50% off? If you want to save money, get a Tamron. If you know photography, you can use Tamron or Sigma to get good pictures. Don't reach for a new camera as a way to improve photography. Approach it only as a tool. If you can't get the most out of the tool you have, a new one won't improve your photography.

Benco · May 4, 2013

hirejn said:
How do you know it's not your technique that's resulting in degraded image quality from the 18-200? Any lens should be able to take great pictures if you know how to get the most out of it. Equipment is just a tool. It's incapable on its own of producing either good or bad photography. I'd say 50% is a significant discount and if you think the lens is good, when else are you going to get 50% off? If you want to save money, get a Tamron. If you know photography, you can use Tamron or Sigma to get good pictures. Don't reach for a new camera as a way to improve photography. Approach it only as a tool. If you can't get the most out of the tool you have, a new one won't improve your photography.

It could be lack of technique but you hit the limit of what you can do with an 18-200 pretty quick, the better your technique is the sooner you'll find those limitations. You can't get around the science of it, a superzoom lens has a big focal range but that comes at a price and that price is image quality. I'm not saying that such lenses are useless, I've got the Nikon 18-200 and as a knockabout lens it's great, huge range, close focusing, reasonable...ish IQ, it's a good jack of all trades lens but it's not a miracle worker. When you hit the limits of what you can do with such lenses and you want more in terms of IQ there's one way to go; get better glass.

littlenomad · May 5, 2013

I am not the steadiest with my hands unfortunately, one of the reasons why I love my prime and I don't like the zoom. And one of the reasons I thought about upgrading to the 7d, so I could ramp up the ISO and and the shutter speed in lower light situations.
How much dust is too much dust?