Affordable Alternative Lenses (550D)

[Tommo224]

Hey all!

I'm considering another lens, something wide but with some zoom range.

I shoot with a 18-55 now, the kit lens. But I'm hoping to get something that can get a high F-Stop (low number yes?) and also that is possibly wider than the 18 (doesn't necessarily have to be, but I like keeping my options open )

What options do I have?

I don't quite understand what to look for, and what would be worth it.

I've stumbled across Tamron lenses on that Teds Camera website before.

[Tjfrnds]

Both Tamron (10-24 f3.5-4.5) and Sigma (10-20 f4-5.6 & 10-20 f3.5) have wide angle zooms, but the widest they they go is around f 3.5, similar to your canon 18-55. What sort of photos do want to take with a wide angle lens? Is it for landscapes or are you after something with better low light capabilities (ie. small f number)?

[Tannin]

Tania, I don't think Tommo is after an ultra-wide lens, but instead for something broadly similar to his 18-55 only better - i.e., a wide/normal zoom. Possibilities include:

• Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF). Around $630. Fast but a bit short.
• Tokina AT-X 165 Pro DX AF 16-50mm f/2.8. Around $1230. Expensive!
• Canon EF-S 15-85mm 3.5-5.6 USM about $1000. Not fast, but excellent in every other way.
• Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS. $1400. The best lens in class, but a bit short and quite expensive.

[Tjfrnds]

Ah, on second reading, I think I misinterpreted

I have the Canon 18-55 kit lens and bought the tamron Tannin mentioned. It's a great lens, nice and sharp.

[zollo]

Hi

If you need more reach than a 17/18-50/55 also have a look at the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. I have this lens and its a nice step up from a kit lens. Some reviewers have rated it as good as some of the Canons. Best bit is the price around $600 local or $400 grey import.

[agb]

There is a use Canon 15-85 on camera market at the moment .

[Tommo224]

Awesome thanks for this!

Another Q, the Tamron ones, there is a version with Image Stabilization and one without.. Is it worth going for..? I don't think I use it on my current one.

[mikew09]

Hi Tommo,
I have the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF). Non VC copy (IS equivelent) and it is a great lens. I was considering the canon 17-85 at the time and was lucky enough to test the two lenses with a friend and for me the Tamron came out on top IQ wise over the same reach not to mention the f2.8 - but that is just my experience. The lens IQ is excellent and colour and contrast well controlled. Flare is about average for what I see on other lens of this level. One key difference I notice between this lens and my L series is there is a bit of chromatic abreviation (I think the term is) on the edges on some shots depending on the settings but only really noticeable at 100%.

The VC model was out when I bought mine but the non VC was a good bit cheaper so went for that - I do not really see the need at 17-50 which is a personal thing.

I hightly recomment this lens. Just one thing, if you can see yourself to stretch a little to a Canon 24-105 L f4 I don't think would regret it, not a f2.8 but a absolutely superb lens.

Hope this helps,

Mike

[virgal_tracy]

Don't buy a cheaper version of a lens that you want for the future. eg don't buy the Tamron 17-50 if you think that eventually you will want the canon 17-55. You are just doubling up and wasting money. Research what you want from a lens and decide which one you want and save for that one rather than settle for a makeshift lens until you can afford the lens of your dreams.

[Tommo224]

Thanks for that Mike, I think I'm leaning towards that

Vince, I don't really have a lens that I'm dreaming of at the moment, as I also don't really know where I would like to 'be' or what to aim for! So I'm picking up things here and there as I go I don't have the disposable income for lenses at the moment (car, property payments, etc) so I'm happy riding along with my kit lens. But if the Tamron could help me step that bit further, then it definitely seems like something I could go for!

I'll have to read in to and compare the Tamron and Canon ones and make a judgement based on the balance of features and "bang for your buck"

[Tommo224]

After reading up on some forums and websites about the Tamron 17-50 (Non-VC) and Sigma 17-70, I think the Tamron is more for me although the view range on the Sigma may make it a little better for the type of photos I do. But I think I'm leaning more towards the Tamron.

The Canon for $1000+ is just way too out of reach for me!

So it's a tough battle between the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70 at the moment