User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: another which 17-50 mm lens question.

  1. #1
    Member Redback200's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    another which 17-50 mm lens question.

    I am looking at getting a 17-50mm F2.8 lens as a walk around and an upgrade from the very old 18.-200mm Sigma that I have. but I can't decide which one to get or to drop some extra money and get a 17-40mm canon L lens.

    I have used the 17-40 before and it feels nice and I like the colours from it. But I'm not entirely sold on it. I'm not planning to go FF at this stage and am thinking that F2.8 instead of 4 and IS could be a good thing.

    Has anyone had experience with the following and if so what is your thoughts with them?
    -Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM
    -Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF]
    -Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM

    Would the extra stop and IS be worth it or would it be worth spending the extra on the canon. I'm not looking at the Canon 17-55mm IS because it's our of my price range.

    This is mostly going to be used for landscapes and probably party/portrait shots so low light performance can be a factor.

    thanks

  2. #2
    Loves The Wildlife. Mary Anne's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane Southside.
    Posts
    34,615
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes the Canon 17-55mm is a great fast lens I have it on my 40D though I can understand it being out of you budget.
    Last edited by Mary Anne; 06-06-2013 at 10:15am.
    My 52/2011 Challenge

    I shoot with Canon And Olympus Cameras



  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Redback200's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Mary Anne,

    The Tamron is about $400, The sigma about $600, The Canon EF 17-40 can be obtained new for about $800, The Canon 17-55 f2.8 I have seen for about $1100. I guess I could save for longer to get it. but is the difference really going to be worth the extra cash? I guess that is really my question. I'm leaning towards the sigma 17-50 f2.8 but thinking maybe the 17-40 L could be worth it too.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I had the Canon 17-40, lovely IQ / colours with it but didn't like the distortion with it at wide angle on a crop frame camera (Canon 50D) Sold it and got the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 non VC and loved it. The Tamron is a really sharp lens and great bang for your buck. If you didn't need the f2.8 though, I would get the Canon EF-S 15-85 lens. Beautiful colour, sharp and a great walk around lens to leave on your camera.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •