| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/08/2007 02:07:58 AM · #1 |
| Hi all, I want to get some inputs on these three lenses Canon 16-35 vs. tamron 17-35 vs. sigma 17-35 because i am planning to buy them for everyday use. The Canon of course is really nice but the price is like oh my... the tamron seen like the best choice and i am not sure about sigma because i never own any of their lenses. any opinions? |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 09:42:42 AM · #2 |
For walkaround use on a a crop camera I'd get the Canon 17-55 rather than any of those. Cheaper, wider range and IS.
splidge
|
|
|
|
05/08/2007 09:57:25 AM · #3 |
Here is a good site for lens reviews: lens reveiws
Hopefully that will help. BTW I fought over the Canon 17-40 and the Tamron 17-50 and due to a lack of $$$ went with the Tamron and it has been a fine performer.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2007 01:01:42 PM · #4 |
| thanks for the link tcmartin, the canon 17-50 f/2.8 with IS is very attractive but for $900??? I rather put in another 2 hundred for the 16-35. The sigma has too much flare, the tamron is the only one that can much the canon 16-35 f/2.8 L. hmmmm, so will you get the tamron or canon in this case? |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 01:47:17 PM · #5 |
One more link for you where owners talk about their new toys: FM
After I bought the Tamron 17-50, I compared it with my friend's Canon 17-40 L -> to be honest, I couldn't see much difference. The Tamron does a very nice job. I have some duplication bwecuase my other favorite lens is my Tamron 28-75, but since I got the 17-50 I rarely take it off the camera.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2007 02:39:04 PM · #6 |
I personally would not get any of those lenses for walking around on a cropped sensor. If you are planning to get a FF soon, then use it as an ultrawide then maybe.
If you are planning to stay with the 30D for a while, I'd recommend the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. A much smaller lens with a better range and more speed. AF though a bit noisier than the Tamron 17-35, but it is faster.
If you plan on going with FF, then I've had the Tamron and used the other two. If money is no object, I'd go for the mark II version of the Canon as it's built really nice, pretty sharp, and AF's faster.
The Tamron is cheapest by far and is pretty good but has a lot of barrel distortion at 17mm, AF is fairly slow and the build feel is pretty bad.
The Sigma is about $470 or so but built very solid with HSM (their version of USM). At 17mm it surprisingly has very little distortion.
If I had to get one, I'd get the Sigma for the best bang for the bucks/features, Canon if money is no object, Tamron if price is very important (under $290). Optically, Sigma and Tamron both seem pretty good, but I haven't heard much about the new Canon except it's corners are sharper when wide open, otherwise it's about the same as the older one. Honestly, I'm not sure you'll see much difference in prints at 8x10 or smaller.
Good luck.
Message edited by author 2007-05-08 14:41:17.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2007 02:46:11 PM · #7 |
I think primes are best for walk around lenses, b/c they are smaller, and it seems to me people usually shoot way too wide with street stuff anyways.
But if you want that focal length id think about the 17-40 f/4 canon lens.
the 16-35 just isn't that awesomely sharp. Unless you really need the 2.8.
personally though, a 20, 24 or 28 mm prime lens (on a crop factor camera) I think is the best walk around lens. |
|
|
|
07/14/2007 10:55:55 PM · #8 |
I'm trying to compare the Sigma 17-35 2.8 and the Tamron 17-35 2.8 myself. It seems a bit of a toss up. I've read a few reviews that the Tamron is a tad soft wide open. Anyone have that experience?
|
|
