New Prime Lens - Recommendations?
- Thread starter Neoni
- Start date
Sure about that?
I never said it isn't a good choice, I said it wouldn't be my first choice on a crop body
In my experience the range isn't as versatile as others that are designed for crop bodies but its all down to personal preference and may well suit the op, a colleague of mine uses 24-120 on a d7100 and loves it
He also says he wants to do weddings so being able to go a bit wider would certainly be useful there.
The 24-70 wouldn't be the craziest lens to have but if you've only got one zoom lens and a 50mm prime then why wouldn't you get one that actually goes wider?
If he really doesn't need the bottom the then the 24-70 is probably better.
It's literally do you want 50-70 or 17-24.
Id personally go with 17-55mm I think if I had to choose one and that was it. If I had to choose 2 nice lenses it would be 10-22 and 24-70mm.
It's literally do you want 50-70 or 17-24.
Id personally go with 17-55mm I think if I had to choose one and that was it. If I had to choose 2 nice lenses it would be 10-22 and 24-70mm.
Im struggling to justify the 17-55 canon though for the price compared to the sigma version at 17-50... its basically half the price new? i could get the sigma 17-50 and the canon 85mm 1.8 for the price of the Canon 17-55
It's a good lens but Canon stuff is never cheap :/ MPB might be worth a check since they're a little cheaper.
You can compare reviews etc but tbh there's no substitute for trying them out yourself at a shop if you've got one nearby?
You can compare reviews etc but tbh there's no substitute for trying them out yourself at a shop if you've got one nearby?
I live in Doncaster, no shops about anymore might have to travel!
Either that or order two and return one if you've got enough cash to temporarily own both? Make sure there's no returns charges if you do hehe 
There's a Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 in the members market here for sale but the price is only a little cheaper than the MPB ones.
There's a Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 in the members market here for sale but the price is only a little cheaper than the MPB ones.
Either that or order two and return one if you've got enough cash to temporarily own both? Make sure there's no returns charges if you do hehe
There's a Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 in the members market here for sale but the price is only a little cheaper than the MPB ones.
Tbh i'd prefer to buy new, sounds daft i've always been the same just looking at online reviews now of all the options! What a difficult game!
is the body i've got adequate enough the 600d?
Yeah it's still a half decent crop body. I had the 650d which was pretty much the same but with touchscreen and the first incarnation of video autofocus but for stills was pretty much the same.
You'd definitely benefit from a better lens over the kit lens
You'd definitely benefit from a better lens over the kit lens
I've decided I rather wait and get good to very good lenses.
I'm really bad and fussy with pictures.
I can't try lenses either. I have to go on reviews and spec
Canon stuff is expensive (especially accessories.. Even worse!)
I have two canon lenses and tbh they are better than my sigmas I think. But not comparing like for like.
Yeah my 35mm sigma is much much cheaper than same speced canon. I'm very intrigued If it's better actually.
I do have niggles with my sigma and my long sigma that I don't with my canons (discount this for my Tele sigma as it's a whole different lens)
I'm definitely not 100pc happy with my 35mm sigma But I'm too new to this to be objective and fair
I'm really bad and fussy with pictures.
I can't try lenses either. I have to go on reviews and spec
Canon stuff is expensive (especially accessories.. Even worse!)
I have two canon lenses and tbh they are better than my sigmas I think. But not comparing like for like.
Yeah my 35mm sigma is much much cheaper than same speced canon. I'm very intrigued If it's better actually.
I do have niggles with my sigma and my long sigma that I don't with my canons (discount this for my Tele sigma as it's a whole different lens)
I'm definitely not 100pc happy with my 35mm sigma But I'm too new to this to be objective and fair
Last edited:
Let's cut to the chase, you would have to be mental to attempt a wedding with a 600D, a 50mm 1.8, a kit lens and a choice of any of the lenses we are discussing.
It doesn't matter, people are going to keep going round in circles and you sound like you need to learn the lesson so many of us did. Buy cheap buy twice. You have convinced yourself you can get 2 for 1 and despite the advice being opposite to what you hoped you are still attacking that line of thought. You will buy the cheaper lenses and 6 months from now they will be on the MM.
We have all done it
I'm wondering if I bought the same lens as you lot! My Tamron 17-50 was super-sharp, focussed fine (albeit audibly) and was built pretty much as well as the Canon 17-55, definitely a world apart from a kit lens. It's also much smaller and lighter than the 17-55. The only niggle was the oft-reported problem of a rattly filter ring, easily fixed in 2 secs by tightening the screws.
Having said all that, owning both, if you can stomach double the price, I'd still recommend the Canon for it's IS and virtually silent AF.
Let's cut to the chase, you would have to be mental to attempt a wedding with a 600D, a 50mm 1.8, a kit lens and a choice of any of the lenses we are discussing.
It doesn't matter, people are going to keep going round in circles and you sound like you need to learn the lesson so many of us did. Buy cheap buy twice. You have convinced yourself you can get 2 for 1 and despite the advice being opposite to what you hoped you are still attacking that line of thought. You will buy the cheaper lenses and 6 months from now they will be on the MM.
We have all done it
Good advice regarding buying cheap.
With the 17-55mm vs 24-70mm, I agree the 24-70mm works quite nicely on crop as a pure portrait lens. You basically get a FF 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 105mm set of primes in one big heavy lens. What you don't get is the wider end- that 24mm end, which is going to be critical for group shots and any general photography, travel, landscape, architecture, street, cityscape etc.
More importantly, the difference between 55mm and 70mm is pretty minimal and easily replicated with a slight crop. The difference between 17mm and 24mm is huge, and cannot be replicated at all. That alone makes the 24-70mm a fairly poor idea IMO unless you can also afford something on the wide end - a sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 would work great as a combo.
Of course I was very unlucky but as I said, I tried 3 lenses and they were all horribly soft and fuzzy with zero contrast. The build quality was definitively far worse than my last kit lens, a Nikon 18-70m f/4.5 which had a solid metal mount and metal barrels with AF-S.
The Tamron was small and light and I wanted it to work but wasn't worth the risk or hassle after 3 attempts.
That's good- I guess Nikon lenses are a better class of kit lens- the Canon 17-55 f2.8 has a metal mount but is mostly engineering plastic. Still heavy though.
The Canon kit lens is entirely plastic if I recall, and weighs so little I expect it'd float on water
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is your best bet if you want good IQ but not Canon prices. That's what I'd go for if I was on a budget and using a crop.
Let's cut to the chase, you would have to be mental to attempt a wedding with a 600D, a 50mm 1.8, a kit lens and a choice of any of the lenses we are discussing.
It doesn't matter, people are going to keep going round in circles and you sound like you need to learn the lesson so many of us did. Buy cheap buy twice. You have convinced yourself you can get 2 for 1 and despite the advice being opposite to what you hoped you are still attacking that line of thought. You will buy the cheaper lenses and 6 months from now they will be on the MM.
We have all done it
I've taken everything you have all said go for the Canon but I'm aslong what the major difference is between that and the sigma because most of the reviews have mentioned the signa as an option for half the price and that there's not much in it so I'm trying to be convinced otherwise? I don't have the money to buy twice
Assuming you're talking about the Sigma 17-50 f2.8- The Canon is optically superior, primarily in the image corners, and has superior AF speed and performance.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-17-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
If you're referring to the 17-70 f2.8-4, then you can also add aperture- the Sigma is f2.8 wide open, but quickly reduces as you zoom in. I can't recally exactly but I think the Sigma is only f2.8 at 17mm and drops sharply with focal length.
Both Sigmas are fine lenses (there are very few modern lenses that aren't) and you can potentially get great results from them. The fact is the Canon is demonstrably better. Whether the differences are important to you is something only you will know, of be able to find out.
I bought the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and got great use out of it, but when I upgraded to the Canon 17-55 f2.8 the difference was clear. For me, just having IS was worth the price of admission, and changed the way I could take photographs.