New Prime Lens - Recommendations?
- Thread starter Neoni
- Start date
I think you should go with 17-55mm 2.8
Why I didn't (and it was a close call)
I have 10-22mm
Have 50mm 1.8
Wanted the creativity of f1.4 35mm over the versatility of zoom.
I personally think 85mm is too long for your purposes. I love my 100mm macro 2.8 but it's very very long on a crop body
Anything 30-50mm seems good for portrait
The 17-55mm covers this completely and is meant to be very very good in all regards
I still want to try one (especially if it is faster to focus than me sigma)
Why I didn't (and it was a close call)
I have 10-22mm
Have 50mm 1.8
Wanted the creativity of f1.4 35mm over the versatility of zoom.
I personally think 85mm is too long for your purposes. I love my 100mm macro 2.8 but it's very very long on a crop body
Anything 30-50mm seems good for portrait
The 17-55mm covers this completely and is meant to be very very good in all regards
I still want to try one (especially if it is faster to focus than me sigma)
So the canon version rather than sigma?
You'll probably find some people that are very happy with their Sigma 17-55mm lens but the Canon would be my choice. The Sigma is an older one that was made before their recent rebrand. The new lenses are generally a lot better than the old ones and the quality is more consistent.
Ive read a lot of reviews that the Sigma matches the Canon for a lot less of the price, im so confused on what to go for! Eek!
im very tempted on the Sigma 18-35 1.8 too! also love the look of the Sigma 35m 1.4! not enough cash haha
im very tempted on the Sigma 18-35 1.8 too! also love the look of the Sigma 35m 1.4! not enough cash haha
Last edited:
FYI I have the Sigma 18-35mm
If I was you I'd go with something that has a bit more versatility than just a 35mm prime. The Sigma 35mm F1.4 is very good but unless you've got other lenses to fill gaps in your lens range then some kind of zoom is going to be more beneficial to you imo. Having one very sharp lens and a load of other mediocre lenses just shows up the shortcomings of the lesser lenses lol
You might as well get something that's sharp and that can spend a lot of time on your camera
The safest bet for you would definitely be the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 if you ask me. The 18-35mm is also a good one but a little less versatile. You get a faster aperture but that comes with its own set of challenges and there's no IS compared to the 17-55mm.
The 17-55mm has been around a lot longer so you're more likely to find a second hand one if you're looking to save a little cash.
If I was you I'd go with something that has a bit more versatility than just a 35mm prime. The Sigma 35mm F1.4 is very good but unless you've got other lenses to fill gaps in your lens range then some kind of zoom is going to be more beneficial to you imo. Having one very sharp lens and a load of other mediocre lenses just shows up the shortcomings of the lesser lenses lol
You might as well get something that's sharp and that can spend a lot of time on your cameraThe safest bet for you would definitely be the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 if you ask me. The 18-35mm is also a good one but a little less versatile. You get a faster aperture but that comes with its own set of challenges and there's no IS compared to the 17-55mm.
The 17-55mm has been around a lot longer so you're more likely to find a second hand one if you're looking to save a little cash.
Last edited:
18-35mm is similarly priced
I would have gone second hand. But none exist. The canon 17-55mm has 2nd hand listings all the time
Mpb are excellent
Yeah both the 18-35mm and 35mm F1.4 lenses are fairly recent and also popular so it's unlikely you'll see second hand ones too often. Another plus for the 17-55mm
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-VC) is a good alternative to the Canon 17-55 and much easier on the wallet. That and an 85mm f/1.8 (or Sigma 85 f/1.4 if you can afford it) should cover a lot of bases.
Good lens but that range suits a full frame camera really whereas you're left a bit wanting at the wide end for a crop body.
17-55mm F2.8!
The 15-85mm is another good crop body lens but that doesn't have a fast constant aperture like the 17-55mm so it wouldn't be as good for what you want it for imo.
Good lens but wouldn't be my first choice for a crop body
FYI someone is selling a 17-55mm F2.8 lens in the members market area
and no, it's not me lolWorks very well as a portrait lens but useless for everyday work. I had one that sat in a cupboard for 3 years until I bought a FF cameta
I'd go with the Sigma 17-70 OS over the Tamron every day of the week. I had a Tamron for a week before it broke (electrical problems). An ok lens but mediocre build quality. It's basically built like the 18-55 kit lens.
The sigma on the other hand is very nice. You do lose the constant f/2.8 but the OS makes up for that in most situations. Focussing is fast and precise and I'm starting to think it's sharper than the Nikon 17-55 I have. The gf has the sigma and she loves it. The only downside is the focus ring rotates when autofocusing.
Tamron, not fandom or random... Autocorrect fail...
Last edited:
I went through 3 copies of the Tamron 17-50mm f/28 and they were all utterly useless, even stopped down and at max micro adjustment.
QA seems diabolical but seems sharp if you get a good copy. Would only eve reccomended buying th lens that you test in person, or buy from a reputable company that will easily accept returns without hassle.
And as above, very cheap plastic build quality. That means it is small and light, but seems like unite. A lot of money for a faster kit lens TBH, I much prefer my Nikon 16-85mm : sharper, crisper, more contrast, better colours, fast auto focus, solid metal barrel, metal mount, wider, longer, but 2 stops slowe at the long(much less at the wide). Ultimately I prefer the 16-85mm + 35mm f/1.8DX combo.
QA seems diabolical but seems sharp if you get a good copy. Would only eve reccomended buying th lens that you test in person, or buy from a reputable company that will easily accept returns without hassle.
And as above, very cheap plastic build quality. That means it is small and light, but seems like unite. A lot of money for a faster kit lens TBH, I much prefer my Nikon 16-85mm : sharper, crisper, more contrast, better colours, fast auto focus, solid metal barrel, metal mount, wider, longer, but 2 stops slowe at the long(much less at the wide). Ultimately I prefer the 16-85mm + 35mm f/1.8DX combo.
Good lens but that range suits a full frame camera really whereas you're left a bit wanting at the wide end for a crop body.
17-55mm F2.8!
The 15-85mm is another good crop body lens but that doesn't have a fast constant aperture like the 17-55mm so it wouldn't be as good for what you want it for imo.
Why isn't it a good choice, nowhere does he suggest he is even using or needing under 35mm let alone 24mm. I'm on crop and I have the 17-55 2.8 and it would depress me if I fired up LR to see how many of my shots are under 24mm. I should have gone 24-70 rather than 17-55. I would rather get the 24-70 and pick up a wide lens for those few times I would need it.