Lens recommendations

Golden Ape · 14 Jun 2008 at 19:14

Right, I feel that I can finally afford a new lens and am looking for something to replace my Canon 28-135. It was great when I actually had a film in my camera but for that last couple of years the 1.6 crop on my 20D has been making life a little difficult. Basically I'm after something with a similar range when crop is taken account of (i.e. 17 to 80ish) - though could be convinced otherwise. I guess I could spend around £400 and could go new or second hand.

I've noticed the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS but it's a little on the pricey side and reviews aren't unanimously great. There's also the Canon 17-85 IS but it gets some bad press. I guess I could go for the Tamron 17-50 which is actually quite tempting.

Are there any candidates that I'm missing and what would you suggest? I'd really appreciate any help thanks!

danza · 15 Jun 2008 at 14:14

Tamron 17-50 is a good bet. As much as I want to hate mine, it keeps impressing me with it's abilities. It isn't that sharp at f/2.8, and not until f/4 and above does it really perform. But how often do you shoot at f/2.8 anyway, apart from to just be able to 'get' a photo?! The only thing that annoys me about its image quality is minor fringing along high contrast edges/backgrounds, but then it's not really that bad at all.

I've also had the Sigma 17-70. Very versatile, but by no means the last word in image quality. I've also had the Canon 17-40L, and whilst it was a little more consistent than the 17-50 and much quiter and better built, there's not a lot in it and the 17-50 is a little more practical for the obvious reasons. The 17-40L did produce contrastier pictures and tended toward a more neutral colour tone, whereas the Tamron produces a slightly yellow colour cast (nothing that can't be easily fixed).

Not too sure on the Sigma 18-50, maybe a little less quality control consistency than the Tamron, but a very good lens if you get a good one. There's also the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8. The extra wideness is quite tempting, but there were quite a few negative reviews the last time I looked.

robertgilbert86 · 15 Jun 2008 at 19:54

The Tamron 17-50 is really good. Barely comes off my camera. I find the sharpness is fine at f2.8, it doesn't look soft at all although I agree it gets sharper above f4. The speed makes it extremely versatile and you can get it for £200 from HK. The only downside is the slow and noisey AF and vignetting at f2.8.

The Tamron is nicer than the Sigma. The Tokina has awful reviews so I'd steer well clear of it. When I was choosing between them the Tokina seemed like a nice lens but that 1mm extra is actually nothing in reality. Oh, and it's an extra £150 minimum!

D.P. · 16 Jun 2008 at 08:21

In theory that 1mm is very important and makes a big difference at the wide end. But I think there is no absolute standard and the Tamron really is a very wide 17mm, noticeably wider than other 18mm lenses. I think the Tokina is not as wide as say the Nikon 16-85 where the 16mm is very nice and practical.

Golden Ape · 16 Jun 2008 at 09:47

Interesting. Thanks for all the comments. It does look like the Tamron is pretty highly thought of (and very affordable). I guess I should really try some of these lenses out down at the local shop, only danger with that is that I'll probably be tempted to buy something there and then without giving it too much thought!