| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2006 07:58:22 AM · #1 |
I'm in a great dilama. I want to replace my canon 350 kit lens which is soft.
I'm planning to buy a walk around lens.
I was planning to buy Tamron 28-75 2.8 but ever since Sigma released their 17-70 2.8 - 4.5 which, execpt for vignetting problem at 17 with operture wide open it seems to have very good sharpness.
So ppl tell me, those who have tamron 28 -75, what would u have done if u had to consider sigma.
Pro's out there please help me..
I appreciate your comments.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 08:13:58 AM · #2 |
| I'd wait for the Tamron 17-50. That's gonna be an awesome lens. I don't trust Sigma so I wouldn't buy it but that's just me. Tamron lenses never have compatibility problems with bodies but Sigmas have to be rechipped for newer bodies. The investment in photography is usually the lenses so I'd rather one that's gonna last. |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 09:57:37 AM · #3 |
well tamron has the advantage of 2.8 through out its range.. but sigma gives extra 11 mm at the wide end...what about others..
pro's throw a light on this... |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 10:38:01 AM · #4 |
I'm a big fan of 2.8 lens, for two reasons:
1) Canon's literature repeatedly states that their cameras are more accurate at focusing with a 2.8 or faster lens.
2) It's fairly common knowledge that most lenses are at their sharpest one or two stops down from wide open.
So... when you're zoomed out to 70mm with the Sigma, your widest aperture is going to be 4.5. That means the camera won't be as accurate at focusing. It most likely will be a little bit slower at focusing. AND... your sharpest pictures are going to be at f/5.6, f/6.3 or f/8.0, somewhere around there. That's a lot of light to give up for your sharpest pictures.
The Tamron, on the other hand, with its fixed 2.8 aperature, should give you more accurate focus across the entire zoom range, and will probably give you it's sharpest pictures around f/4.0.
If you search the forums here, you'll find a lot of fans of that Tammy. It's a fine lens. The only downside is, as you've noted, it's really not as wide as people would like when placed on a 1.6x crop body.
That said... I've really enjoyed my EF-S 17-85mm for its versatility. It's not as fast as the Tammy, and I seldom use it at weddings because of that. But when I want a really wide angle shot it works well.
But, maybe later on you'll consider the EF-S 10-22mm for the ultra wide angle shots. :-)
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 10:42:47 AM · #5 |
I just got the Tamron and doubt it will leave my camera again for quite a while. It's a great lens, fast and sharp. And compared to the Sigma, the constant 2.8 of the Tamron would make it an easy choice for me - 4.5 on the zoom end of the Sigma is just going to be way too slow in low light.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 10:47:32 AM · #6 |
Take a lok at teh Tamaron SP24-135
For a walkaround lens it can't be beat, great range super sharp and macro too. about $400
If you want a fast lens, the 'best' is the canon 50 1.8. (value for money, shallow dof, speed)
I find a constant aperture lens to be fantastic - I have the sigma 18-50 2.8 EX. A bit soft on my rebel 300 below 3.5 though. I say 'on my rebel' cause i have not tried it on my 30D - dwterry is partly right - on the 20D /30D and up canon cameras the focusing is more accurate with a 2.8 or wider aperture lens (extra sensors kick on with a 2.8+ lens). The 300/350 are not any better with a 2.8 lens, but the image is brighter and that is always a good thing.
Tamron is coming out with a 17-50 2.8 in late may, in their SP (pro glass) line. I am looking forward to this lens and will probably replace my 17-50 sigma.
I have heard good things about the sigma 17-70 and the range is good.
the tamron 28-75 is very good, but 28 is NOT wide enough indoors and ma not be outdoors. 24 is acceptable most of the time. 17-70 is probably the best overall compromise in focal lenth for an APS sensored camera.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 11:21:30 AM · #7 |
So I guess the answer so far is definitely maybe one of the two lenses or the other one or maybe another couple of lenses.
HRM. I too am facing this choice as time is approaching for me to enter DSLRLand. I have been considering the 28-75 vs the 17-70 too, but I think I will go for the 28-75. It's very close in price, probably more versatile for most things I do, but is missing the wide angle. The lens at 28mm is close to what I am used to at full wide on my S2 IS, so I don't think I will miss anything. I'm still considering picking up a cheap 18-55 kit lens for if I want wide before I go ahead and get the 10-22 (or borrow it from my friend if he ever buys it ;).
It's a tough call right now and I don't like having a wasted lens, but I'd rather have 28-75 than 17-50 personally when considering the long run. It complements the ultra wide angle lenses much better.
I have made the decision to use as many f/2.8 or better lenses as possible because I am going with the 30D. On the other hand, you have a 350XT.
Canon's additional focusing sensors are only present in the 20D/30D and above. Therefore, the issue is moot with your camera.
Message edited by author 2006-04-15 11:22:47. |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 12:18:02 PM · #8 |
depends on what you shoot, whay you like,you style.
a 70-200 2.8 is a no brainer,
if you like wildlife, you need a 400mm or more
interior of normal buildings, 28 is not wide enough. on a 1.6x crop camera it'a a 45mm lens. NOT wide enough.
a 24 is = to 38 - almost enough
an 17 is 27mm - that is more like it!
The tokins 12-24 F4 is a very nice lens and is on my list. I have found 28 is NOT wide enough for me, and switching a wider lens is a PITA for 4mm (28 to 24).
The sigma 18-50 2.8 is very nice indoors and place you need wide, easy to handhold and very sharp from F4 or so an up. When I got it there was no other option (canon 17-40 f4 - more money for a slower lens with less range). Today I'd look VERY hard at the sigma 17-70 (= to a 27-112 range). 4.5 at 112mm is NOT bad folks, not at all.
Why 18mm? Indoors, landscapes, places you can't back up
   
I just found for some things 50mm (or 70 or 80) is not enough on the long end, so i was switching lenses and missing shots. The tamron 24-135 is great for that and great for the studio. If it was a 2.8 lens I'd marry it.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 12:56:48 PM · #9 |
| One consideration is the aperature of the 17-70 at 50mm. If its still f/2.8, the issue is do you want the extra 20mm, and is there an IQ tradeoff? |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 11:04:32 PM · #10 |
The 17-70 at 50mm will likely be f/4.0 or 4.5 already.
Not even close.
I am wondering how many situations will be SO specific as to actually require a 24-28mm length Or a 22-28mm length for that matter.
I'm probably going to go for the kit lens as an issue of price more than anything.
The 3 lenses that look good for this are the 17-70, 18-50 and the 28-75, but the first two look like they are nowhere near the price range of the 18-55 and don't cover an optimal range for my future use. If I was not planning on the 10-22 (or 12-24... tough call), I would definitely choose a better lens. Probably wait for the 17-50 f/2.8. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 08:18:57 AM · #11 |
If we take a look at the MTF (Resolution) test of both the lenses, Sigma beats tamron.
MTF values of Sigma are Very Good to Execllent
but for Tamron its good to very good to Execellent
And Tamron is poor at borders....
Sigma's vignetting prob at 17 when wide open. otherwise it is excellent
Tamron Test results
Sigma Test results
Please post more info if someone has hands on experince with any of the lenses
Message edited by author 2006-04-17 08:50:56. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 10:25:49 AM · #12 |
| tamron 28 - 75, just because of the constant apeture of 2.8.... |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 02:43:10 AM · #13 |
In my view, these are really two different lenses. Optically, both are good but here is my thinking.
If you are looking for a one lens solution, then a 17-70 would be my choice. It seems really sharp and fast (at the wide end) and has a great range. Unfortunately, it's not an ultrawide and it's not fast at middle and the long end.
Tamron is a great lens with great optics and a constant f2.8 which is really nice. Unfortunately, this lens is not wide enogh for many to use it as a walking around lens. With the crop, this is more like a 45mm to 120mm zoom. I would consider this as an ideal normal zoom if you are getting an ultrawide, like a Canon 10-22 and a 28-75, as these two would really makes for a great walking around and portrait lens combo.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 03:17:44 AM · #14 |
| Tamron... that's the only lens I use and have been very happy with it. All glass optics and a 6-year warrenty regardless of what happens. |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 02:58:18 AM · #15 |
so did anybody buy any of the lenses?
i'm looking at the tamron 17-50 or sigma 17-70. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 09:17:24 PM EDT.
