| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/29/2007 07:03:37 PM · #1 |
My new 350D is on its way! :)
But I do need something to replace the kit lens (aside from the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II which I'm getting anyway) - after much consideration and some help from some of the people here at dpc, I've narrowed it down to 2 lenses, listed here with pro's and con's.
Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro
Pro's
- More versatile than the Tamron, useful-ish 50-70mm and Macro capability (though not 1:1)
- CA and distortion pretty well controlled
- Cheaper
- Focuses marginally quicker than the Tamron
Con's
- Not as sharp as the Tamron?
- Rumours of soft copies flying around
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II
Pro's
- According to sharpness tests on photozone.de, really really sharp (i.e. sharper than Canon 17-40mm f/4 L at 17mm)
- f/2.8 throughout the range (though as I'm using mainly the Canon for low-light photography I'm not sure how useful this would really be)
- Built like a tank
- Smaller filter size
Con's
- Barrel distortion at 17mm (don't think this would be much of a problem)
- Stops at 50mm. As I plan to get a Sigma 70-300mm APO as my telephoto at some point I would lose this range which worries me a bit.
There are a few things I need to consider:
a) How much would I miss the macro function? (not much, planning to get a Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro by the end of the year)
b) But buying the Tamron would leave a 50-70mm gap - how annoying would this be? (probably fairly annoying)
b) How reliable are these MTF50 sharpness tests on photozone and is the difference between the two lenses signficant enough?
Though I'm only an amateur I am going to be embarking on a project where I will want the best quality images I can get within my price constraints! (and no, I really can't afford the 17-40mm L!)
Thanks in advance for your help!
Jonty |
|
|
|
07/29/2007 07:08:45 PM · #2 |
| Go with the Tamron. A BIG con for the Sigma that you don´t mention is that it´s 2.8-4.5 while the Tamron is 2.8 all the way. The 20mm lost don´t matter squat and it´s a very very small hole in your focal length range if you plan on getting a 70-300, trust me. If you want to get serious about macro anyway you will want to get a special lens or extention tubes, stuff like that so the "macro" on the sigma just means it focuses closer, wich is of course good but trust me, if you want to do serious macro the Sigma 17-70 is no way to cut it. |
|
|
|
07/29/2007 07:12:36 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
07/29/2007 07:21:26 PM · #4 |
I too have to agree with Nick and Larus, if not in part for the experience and skill, but also for the facts mentioned.
I have used both and owned the Sigma. I managed to get a good copy of this lens and while it is great outside, you'll miss the 2.8 all the way through more than the 20mm at the long end. Also, the Sigma drops the 2.8 around 24mm which truly sucked while I had it.
As for the macro you mention, it really isn't that great. The results are soft and like Larus says, if you really want to shoot macro you'll HAVE TO get a real macro lens.
My 2 cents. |
|
|
|
07/29/2007 07:36:36 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by sea2c:
if you really want to shoot macro you'll HAVE TO get a real macro lens.
|
no you don't! You've already got a great macro set of lenses with your 50 1.8 attached the other way around to the apo 70-300 with a filter inside to filter outside adapter (if that's what you call that thingy)... |
|
|
|
07/29/2007 07:47:34 PM · #6 |
 Elvis_L had the Tamron 17-50 for sale here ... |
|
|
|
07/30/2007 04:51:49 AM · #7 |
| Thanks very much for your help guys :) I think the decision is pretty much made! |
|
|
|
07/30/2007 06:15:16 AM · #8 |
But before you buy... have you considered the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO ? :o)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/31/2025 12:09:34 PM EST.
