Tamron 17-50mmf/2.8 OR Sigma 10-20mmf/4

[theregoesjb]

about to get my first DSLR and am going to get my first lens. i've used my fathers DSLR quite a bit and will be able to borrow his canon 50mm 1.8 all i want.

I wanted to have a good wide angle like the sigma (10-20mmf/4) for landscape or city shots, but i am a little concerned how it will behave as a walk around lens. Ive heard its pretty good but im wondering if photos of people will tend to look distorted even at 20mm.

I was also considering the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 though because it is relatively fast and although not as wide as the sigma it has a decent range. It gets pretty good reviews and could also eliminate the need to borrow the 50mm but would it be much less sharp?

just wondering what you would do in this situation? or maybe is there another you would rather recommend? (same 400-500 price range)

 

[DiskoJoe]

I would say start with the 17-50. See if that is wide enough. If not then pick up a 10-20 later. I would start with the 17-50. Much more useful lens. The 10-20 would be pretty much for landscape only. Not a good walking lens.

 

[jriepe]

As far as the Tamron 17-50 being much less sharp than the Canon 50 I have serious doubts but can't say since I don't shoot Canon but can say I believe my Tamron 17-50 is every bit as sharp as my Nikon 50mm f/1.8. I have the older Tamron one without VC but it is a very sharp lens in my opinion.

Jerry

 

[theregoesjb]

thanks for the input,
yeah i can see why the 10-20 might not be the most practical for anything other than landscapes, too bad since id love that wide 10mm.

 

[ulrichsd]

Depends what you use your camera for....

If I was doing artistic photos and/or landscapes and I had a 50mm I'd take the UWA 10-20mm.

If I was doing indoor or casual people photography, I'd go with the 17-50mm. 20mm is a bit too wide and slow at f/5.6 and 50mm is to long for indoor low light, family photos, kid photos, etc.

 

[Jeremy Z]

10-20 mm is an ultra wide angle zoom. Only rarely would it be useful for people pix. Like when it is hard to get a big group in a tight room all in the frame.

The 17-50 f/2.8 would make an EXCELLENT all around lens. It can do a little bit of everything except for long telephoto shots. Everything it does, it will do better than a standard d/3.5-5.6 kit lens.

17 mm is a proper wide angle, and only rarely will you not be able to get everything in the frame with it.

50mm is a short telephoto, and good for portraits.

30mm simulates the level of magnification you've got with the naked eye.

Go for that one, and you'll know what you want more of for your next lens.