Replacing the 20d kit lens. - DPChallenge Forums

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

10/16/2007 03:22:44 PM · #1

So I am looking for something to replace the kit lens that came with the 20d. I don't have a crazy large budget as I am not a pro so the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is probably out as it is $1000 (unless I can find a REALLY good used deal). So I am looking at both the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens and the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens. I am a really big fan that the Sigma's zoom turns the same direction as canon lenses as all of my other lens do. But it sounds like the tamron is a much better lens. What do you guys think?

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/16/2007 03:26:02 PM · #2

Stick with the kit lens, which isn't noticeably worse than either of the listed alternatives, and treat yourself to the Canon 10-22mm superwide; it will rock your world with a new way of seeing.

R.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/16/2007 06:17:36 PM · #3

I just dont know if I would be satisfied with something that only does that limited of a range. Maybe I could try it out somehow and see.

figaro

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/16/2007 06:40:26 PM · #4

I have the Tamron 17-50mm and like it very much. To me, it offers a significant step up from the kit lens in all departments and the constant 2.8 aperture is great. I've seen the odd review that's very favourable of the Sigma but I believe that the Tamron is better regarded in general. As it's the only zoom lens I currently own the zoom turn direction isn't really an issue!

figaro

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/16/2007 06:42:05 PM · #5

I don't know how keen you are on wide angle photography but I take Bear_Music's point - right now I would kill for the Sigma 10-20mm/Canon 10-22mm, but can't afford it as I can't bear to part with the Tamron!

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

10/16/2007 08:08:07 PM · #6

I also would love to have a 10-22mm. Would sell the wife's 20D if she would let me. But if you want to replce the kit lens then I say Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8

LERtastic

Nikon D200

10/16/2007 08:53:33 PM · #7

My advice:

I own Nikon, but this can apply. When I bought my camera, I didn't have any extra money, so I had to buy just the body and then borrow my friend's lenses until I could afford my own. I decided to get a lens off a friend that was switching to Canon for a really good deal, that would be my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. It is a great all around lens. When I was ready to purchase a second lens, my initial thought was to buy a telephoto, to complete my range. But I really started to think about how much I used a telephoto when I had access to one, and the answer was rarely. I also knew that I enjoyed taking pictures of people more than anything else. At the time, I was taking pictures of my friends mostly in darker settings. So I decided to go for the 85 1.8, as it is the perfect length (on a D70s) for portraits and it is really awesome in low light. I also knew that I eventually wanted to get into shooting portraits and weddings. I have owned the 85 1.8 for about 8 months now, and I am just now getting requests to do weddings, headshots, ect.

My point is not to run out and buy the 85 (although it is a fantastic lens), but to look at what you want to do with your photography. Until I am pulling in more money, I am stuck with only a couple lenses in my collection, and I am far more happy with my 85 than I would have been with a 70-200/300 telephoto at the same price. The key is to decide what you want to do with your equipment, then ask around for what the good lenses are for that certain task.

PS. If you do just end up replacing your kit lens, I love my Sigma 17-70, and it's incredibly sharp.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

10/16/2007 09:12:15 PM · #8

When I had the 20D I replaced the kit lens with the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I was very pleased with it.

Couldn't use it on the 5D or I would still have it.

Prof_Fate

10/16/2007 11:39:12 PM · #9

What is your objective? In other words, what's wrong with the kit lens?

DO you want a more wide open, constant aperture lens? More reach? Faster focus? Sharper?

As always, every lens is some kind of compromise. The tamron is sharp, but it's not as fast focusing or quiet as the canon, and of course lacks IS - but is a lot less expensive.

I had the first sigma 18-50 2.8 and I found it wasn't acceptable sharp until 5.6...why get a 2.8 lens you can't shoot at 2.8? The newer version is rated as a 'macro' so it's definitely different - but I've no idea if it's better.

The canon 17-85 IS is a nice lens - fast focusing, sharp, more reach. Not a constant ap lens.
The canon 28-135 is a nice lens too - i got one as apart of a kit wtih my 40D and lots are being sold new/used from other kit buyers so these are a bargain right now. It's USM so it's fast focusing (faster than the tamron 28-75 2.8).

There is a USM verison of the kit lens out there, and now there is an IS version that is new too //www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=15704

The tamron 24-135 SP is an excellent lens, but again, not constant / fast aperture.

Have you considered getting a few primes? The 28 1.8 USM is excellent, and I've heard the 35 F2 is very good. The 50 1.4 is good (the 1.8 less so - slow to focus, CA), and the 85 1.8 is fantastic.

The tamron 28-75 2.8 is sharp and a nice lens, but slow focusing (compared to canon USM lenses). It's priced right though.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

10/17/2007 07:50:55 PM · #10

honestly I would like a quicker lens. A larger aperture for quicker shots inside.

Message edited by author 2007-10-17 19:52:12.

slickchik

OM System OM-1

10/17/2007 09:52:55 PM · #11

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Stick with the kit lens, which isn't noticeably worse than either of the listed alternatives, and treat yourself to the Canon 10-22mm superwide; it will rock your world with a new way of seeing.

R.

OK, just have to give my $0.02:

This 10-22mm lens is by far my favorite lens. You will be amazed at the new perspective you will gain with it. You will NEVER regret buying this lens...I take it with me everywhere.

But if you want an inside lens, the 50mm f/1.4 rocks my socks. (But I really love the 10-22)

Prof_Fate

10/17/2007 10:12:02 PM · #12

Originally posted by IAmMoen:

honestly I would like a quicker lens. A larger aperture for quicker shots inside.

Sigma or tamron 17-50 2.8 run,what, $400?. Canon 17-55 is $1000.

The tamron is optically close to the canon (sigma, don't know).

Canon will holds it's value, the tamron may lose 1/3 of it's value - check used prices and determine what you think. My sigma lost about 1/3 of it's value - it didn't help that sigma lowered the price on the new one, then came out with an improved one for less than i paid for mine - a sure loss.
I am selling a tamron 24-135...it currently has a rebate on it. Again, I'll lose 1/3 of my purchase price.

canon doesn't have big rebates ($25 or $50 on a $1000 lens is small), doesn't cut prices, doesn't often update thereby reducing the resale value of the older lens.

and with IS you can handhold down to 1/5 of a second. focus will be faster and quieter too.

If you have the money, get the canon. If you don't have the money, well, then get the tamron.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/17/2007 11:50:58 PM · #13

I'm surprised the 17-40 F4 L hasn't been mentioned. WORLDS better then the kit lens and can be found under $700. But it's a stop slower then the 2.8s...