Lens deliberations (Canon 17-85 IS vs Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 vs Tamron 28-75 f/2.8)

[ab1385]

I know I posted the other day on this sort of subject, but I've had a further think about what I want and thought it would be easier to create a new post about it.

I've now owned two 'standard' lenses and not really been happy enough with either of them - the Canon 18-55mm which was too slow, and didn't have enough range, and the Sigma 18-125 DC, which was better, but still annoyed me with being too slow at f/3.5-5.6 (the 5.6 being the bit that annoyed me mainly!).

Anyway, it is beginning to dawn on me that in order to get the lens I really want it's going to cost me a bit more

I have a few ideas, so I thought I'd see what everyone thought. Basically, I wanted an f/2.8 lens, so was considering either the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Problem with these is they're lacking the wider angle that I quite like, and I can't really afford to fork out for another lens at the same time. The Tamron I've heard is sharper than the Sigma, but it lacks even more in the wide angle.

The other idea I had was the Canon 17-85 IS USM. Not as fast, but how much does the IS compensate, in real world terms? It has pretty much the zoom range I'm looking for! For low light, I'm probably thinking mainly of indoor portraits, maybe some local gigs etc.

I'm probably leaning toward the Canon, if it's likely to be fast enough, just due to the wider angle ability.

Would I be losing out by going for IS rather than an f/2.8 lens? The Canon is about £100 more expensive as well, which is stretching my budget...

Argh! Any input and/or ideas?

[tdodd]

I have a 30D with the 17-85 and it is a pretty versatile lens if you're going to stick with just one. The zoom range is great and IS works well and is very beneficial. It is a great walkabout lens. Image quality is also good enough for my needs although barrel distortion can be a bit annoying when fully wide.

The only real limitation I have faced is with indoor shots - a wedding in October and a panto rehearsal yesterday. IS is great for stabilising the camera but is no use for freezing motion in the subject(s). Even with a 580EX flash and the aperture wide open I was seeing the shutter speed drop as slow as 1/13th or so for some indoor shot in Av mode. Even at 1/60th there was still too much subject motion in fingertips from dancing. I reckon f2.8 could have been quite handy in those circumstances.

The other great thing with a constant max aperture (lacking in the 17-85) is that you can shoot on full manual and not worry about the effects of zooming altering your exposure. This, and a fast aperture, are pretty essential when shooting a wedding, for example, with high contrast ranges and all sorts of interesting lighting variations indoors.

For portraits the IS would sort out the problem of wobbly camera syndrome but with the slower apertures, especially at the tele end you're not going to be able to throw the background out of focus much at all. For gigs you'll face the problem of a slow shutter and lots of subject movement causing blur in the subject, unless you're happy shooting at ISO 1600 or more. Even than I think you'd value a fast aperture more than IS.

IS has its place as a solution but there are situations where a fast aperture are more important. The 17-85 really is a Jack of all trades and master of none. For me it has proved an excellent starter lens but I shall probably add to it (not replace it!) with faster glass and longer glass (Canon 100-400L is next on the list, for length, with a 50mm f1.8 for speed) in the forthcoming year. A fast wide angle to short tele zoom and a macro lens should complete my collection as funds/interest permit. But I think I shall keep the 17-85 as a flexible and versatile outdoor walkabout lens when I want to travel light.

[tdodd]

p.s. what about the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5?.....

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/...2845/index.htm

[ab1385]

Hmmm, a 17-70 f/2.8 throughout the range would have been a winner, I feel.

Thanks for the advice - I think the best idea is probably to go into a shop and look at what they have - presumably most camera shops will let you try out the lens, take pics etc with it before buying? I've heard some manufacturers, especially sigma, are a bit lacking in the quality control department...

After reading what you wrote, I think I'm probably leaning more toward the Sigma 24-70... Or maybe the Canon 24-205 f/4 L IS - anyone want to buy my sister? :D

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by ab1385

Hmmm, a 17-70 f/2.8 throughout the range would have been a winner, I feel.

Thanks for the advice - I think the best idea is probably to go into a shop and look at what they have - presumably most camera shops will let you try out the lens, take pics etc with it before buying? I've heard some manufacturers, especially sigma, are a bit lacking in the quality control department...

After reading what you wrote, I think I'm probably leaning more toward the Sigma 24-70... Or maybe the Canon 24-205 f/4 L IS - anyone want to buy my sister? :D

Ill swap my two kids for your one sister and cash if you like. The kids are going on ebay soon as i want a 5D

Based on you saying you dont have a lot to spend here are my thoughts. I haven't read your other thread yet so sorry if ive got it wrong:

In my view the 17-85 IS isn't a great lens but its not a bad one either. IQ is ok but its not a fast lens so not one of the best for narrow DOF IMHO

I have a 24-105L and its a great lens but its not one i would consider as a low light/gig lens. In fact its the lens i use least indoors. I do believe IS is useful in low light situation as although it cant freeze motion a lot of the time things aren't always moving that fast anyway. I shot my sons school play rehearsals last night with it and while i was getting slow shutter speeds of 1/50-1/80 i still got loads of good shots as well as some blurred but the IS did stop me getting camera shake.
But for the real thing ill be using my 50mm f/1.4 as its faster and sharper.
I did have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and it was a fantastic lens but unlike you i found it not long enough. i ended up getting rid of it and getting a 17-50 f/2.8 and 24-105L. (thanks Amex).

If you plan on using flash indoors then a fast lens isnt really needed. I have shot up to 1/800 with flash indoors just fine but its nice to have a narrower DOF for portraits
For smaller gigs f/2.8 might not be good enough. i play in a few bands and take my 30D with me if we are taking a friend who can take some shots. even my 17-50 is too slow for most of the places we play. the one time i took my 50mm f/1.4 it was a real eye opener what a fast lens can get you. Maybe for small gigs on a budget get a 50mm f/1.8. If the stage/musicians are well lit then a slower lens would be ok but our venues normally rely on our stage lights and we dont have many

After owning a DSLR for 18months now i have found that you should spend a bit extra and get the lens you want. i have been through a few mid range zooms like the Tamron, a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Canon 28-105USM but all the time i wanted the 24-105L. I lost money selling them and buying new ones when it would have cost me less in the long run to get what i wanted rather trying to go with the cheap option. but now i have the 24-105L i feel i dont need anything else (at the moment)

Remember that if you are taking shots in a shop that has strip lighting it can play havoc with the WB and focus

My vote would go to the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 mainly because its smaller and lighter than the Sigma.

All above IMHO of course.

[ab1385]

Thanks.

In the end I went with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, if only because I got one from eBay for £135!

Looking forward very much to getting it now, and will probably end up buying the Sigma 10-20mm to go with it. That and my 70-300 APO will probably do me for now!

Thanks for the advice people.

[senu]

Good on you fantastic lens great price..

If you have any spare cash.. The "nifty fifty" ( 50mm f 1.8) for £70 is an incredible bargain given the speed Image quality and cost.

It is in the middle of your Tamrons range but I use it in addition to the 17-85 IS to get a lot of images without upsetting the bank manager ..( Yet)
How useful you will find it is down to you but for its cost even for occasional use it will IMHO impress you

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by ab1385

Thanks.

In the end I went with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, if only because I got one from eBay for £135!

That's an absolute steal for a very good lens.

[mattym]

agreed, bargain price for a top class lens