lens descisions....

adamau5

adamau5

adamau5

Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
2,029
hi all,

On my 500d i currently have a sigma 10-20, the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens.

I find myself enjoying shooting events, parties, weddings etc. Typically anything with people in frame and i use off camera flashes frequently.

I want something to replace the 18-55mm but have a limited budget.

One option is the highly rated tamron 17-50 non vc, the other is the tamron 28-75.

I am thinking the extra reach of the 28-75 would be very useful, particularly for weddings, but at the same time on a crop body it will probably be too long indoors in tight spaces. Ok i have the sigma but will i want to be lens swapping all the time.

What are your thoughts, anyone have any experience of making a similar choice?

advice appreciated.
 
i had the sigma 18-50 f2.8 "macro" for a couple of years (had to sell it when i went to the 1D) and it was a lovely little lens. tack sharp.
 
I had the Tamron 28-75 on a 1D3 for a short while and to be honest I was underwhelmed by it. I may have had a duff copy though as there is quite a lot of love for the lens. As to whether it is wide enough, set you 18-55 to 28mm and see how you like it? For group shots it's likely to be too long. I've been using a 30mm prime lately for pretty much everything indoors, I've hardly touched the 17-50! I haven't been doing any group shots though....

It comes down to what is important for you, the extra reach or the ease of having only one lens on the camera...

There is the 17-70 lens from Sigma. This isn't a fixed aperture lens though (f2.8-4), I don't have any experience of this lens though.
 
You should maybe have a look at the focal length range of pictures you already have to see what you use most.
I don't really take event style pictures but personally I have (in the order I bought them) the tamron 28-75, ef-s 55-250, and sigma 10-20.
I bought the 28-75 because I wanted more reach, but occasionally a few mm more on the wide end would really have helped. But it is what you make of it I guess.
In hindsight, would I change my decision to buy the 28-75 over the 17-50? Still no idea. Probably not

Sorry, Not much help really :p
 
I have the Tamron 28-75mm, and i love it. I don't take a lot of groups shots, and i do think you might find it too long for the group shots you want. Its my most used lens and takes fantastic protraits. Great lens for the money.
 
Last edited:
I have the sigma 24-70 f2.8 and love it for indoor shots little more expensive then the tamron but thats down to you which you would prefer
 
I don't know about Canon that much but I see there is a Canon 15-85mm, which at first glance would appear to fit the bill perfectly. No idea about image quality or compatibility though.
 
I need something quick, F2.8 really so the 15-85 doesnt fit the bill unfortunately.

It seems like the advice is split. I think the sensible way to go on this is get a second hand lens and give it a go, if no good sell it on for little loss.
 
I'm pretty much the same as yourself in kit and shooting parties etc. I find the nifty too long at times and after I did a bit of research I was toying over the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - still haven't decided yet but leaning more towards the 17-50 and doing away with kit lens.
 
The 28-75mm will actually work out as 44.8mm on the wide end on your 500d so there will be a huge gap left between your 10-20mm and the, effective, 44.8-120mm. The focal length range between 20mm and 44mm would be extremely useful when shooting indoors as well.
 
Well I think you should be looking at a canon EF-S 18-85mm IS USM or Sigma 17-70 DC OC HSM.
That should cove your needs
 
DJ_Switch said:
The 28-75mm will actually work out as 44.8mm on the wide end on your 500d so there will be a huge gap left between your 10-20mm and the, effective, 44.8-120mm. The focal length range between 20mm and 44mm would be extremely useful when shooting indoors as well.
Click to expand...

The 10-22 is an effective 16-35 on the crop, so not that big of a gap. (It is an EF-S lens designed for a crop but the focal length stated on all lenses is that of the full frame equivalent).
 
I'd definately go for one of the 17-50(ish) f2.8 lenses on offer from Sigma or Tamron in your position they get great reviews and can be had pretty cheaply on the second hand market. If money was no option I would have said the Canon 17-55 IS USM as it is easily the best lens of it's type but way over budget!
 
Rojin said:
As to whether it is wide enough, set you 18-55 to 28mm and see how you like it?
Click to expand...

Rojin said:
The 10-22 is an effective 16-35 on the crop, so not that big of a gap. (It is an EF-S lens designed for a crop but the focal length stated on all lenses is that of the full frame equivalent).
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that setting the 18-55 to 28mm would not show you the field of view of the 28-75mm at its widest, however, I was just trying to help and not start an argument and so didn't quote you on it before.

I have a 17-35mm on my 35mm film slr so I understand it's roughly the same field of view as 20mm on a crop at the long end. I said 20mm as referring to the 10-20mm he was talking about but perhaps I should have explained this part another way. The gap between the 20mm and 28mm (32mm and 44.8mm)is not to be sniffed at when talking about indoor photography and in needing to swap lenses to traverse that gap...as well as losing the fast aperture at anything under an effective 44.8mm focal length. That, in my opinion, is making probably the more useful focal length range a troublesome prospect. i.e. 32mm would be at a minimum of f/5.6 on his Sigma and it would require a lens change to jump to 44.8mm to get a faster aperture. That may seem like a small gap but it's, in my opinion, a significant gap and complicates matters further by where the gap falls, in it being right around an extremely useful indoor focal length...not to mention the aperture problems that would be avoided by having a 17-50 and fast throughout that range.
 
Last edited:
DJ_Switch said:
I was just pointing out that setting the 18-55 to 28mm would not show you the field of view of the 28-75mm at its widest, however, I was just trying to help and not start an argument and so didn't quote you on it before.
Click to expand...

28mm is 28mm, they'll both be the same if they're both used on the same body :)
 
DJ_Switch said:
I was just pointing out that setting the 18-55 to 28mm would not show you the field of view of the 28-75mm at its widest, however, I was just trying to help and not start an argument and so didn't quote you on it before.

I have a 17-35mm on my 35mm film slr so I understand it's roughly the same field of view as 20mm on a crop at the long end. I said 20mm as referring to the 10-20mm he was talking about but perhaps I should have explained this part another way. The gap between the 20mm and 28mm (32mm and 44.8mm)is not to be sniffed at when talking about indoor photography and in needing to swap lenses to traverse that gap...as well as losing the fast aperture at anything under an effective 44.8mm focal length. That, in my opinion, is making probably the more useful focal length range a troublesome prospect. i.e. 32mm would be at a minimum of f/5.6 on his Sigma and it would require a lens change to jump to 44.8mm to get a faster aperture. That may seem like a small gap but it's, in my opinion, a significant gap and complicates matters further by where the gap falls, in it being right around an extremely useful indoor focal length...not to mention the aperture problems that would be avoided by having a 17-50 and fast throughout that range.
Click to expand...

Sorry I did misquote 10-22 instead of 10-20, so the gap is slightly larger (I was looking at the Canon UWA earlier!). Nothing that shifting your feet doesn't sort out though. I agree that the 17-50 is probably the best option, in fact that is the route I have personally gone down.

Setting the 18-55 to 28 would give the same field of view as the wide end of the 28-75. Within reason as some manufacturers even have a slightly different idea of the fov on a fixed prime! It'll be very close though.
 
Zogger said:
28mm is 28mm, they'll both be the same if they're both used on the same body :)
Click to expand...

Rojin said:
Sorry I did misquote 10-22 instead of 10-20, so the gap is slightly larger (I was looking at the Canon UWA earlier!). Nothing that shifting your feet doesn't sort out though. I agree that the 17-50 is probably the best option, in fact that is the route I have personally gone down.

Setting the 18-55 to 28 would give the same field of view as the wide end of the 28-75. Within reason as some manufacturers even have a slightly different idea of the fov on a fixed prime! It'll be very close though.
Click to expand...

My apologies. You're correct. I'm tying myself in knots going from Nikon's 1.5 crop to Canon's 1.6 to my 35mm slr.

I just think the gap between them is a significant one, for the reasons previously stated, and think the 28-75mm is not as useful for indoor photography on a crop as a 17-55mm would be when it's paired with a slow zoom like the Sigma.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom