Reading mode: Light Dark

Sorry people gorra ask again...which lens?

Go to last post
S

siejones

Active member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
OK OK you have heard this story so many times but I need help!

It's the old story of which wide to standard zoom to choose to replace the kit lens.

Let me tell you what I have and what I would require from said lens.

My current setup:
  • Canon 350D
  • 18-55 kit lens
  • Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro
The lenses I have been looking at:
  • Canon 17-40 4L
  • Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG
  • Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG
  • Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (out of breath)
I would mainly use it for landscape shots and by that I mean mountain landscape type shots. I am a hill/mountain walker

in the UK and the stunning views I sometimes see just have to be captured. Even if it just my benefit alone for that
perfect memory.

I have had a few digital compacts in the past from "fuji 2600 zoom" to G5 and have taken many many landscapes but although they were a nice they were never really had the IQ and detail I wanted. Especially considering I would really like to print out to A3 size to adorn my walls. So what I want is a lens that delivers sharpness and resolution enough to produce the kind of put it on the wall and pick out the detail type quality.

This kind of photography I aspire to is the work of Colin Prior and to produce anywhere near his work would be my ulitmate goal. I understand he uses large format cameras and expensive gear to produce his masterpieces and I don't pretend this think I could match that kind of quality but I would like to get as near as I could.

I do not require a super wide and I feel the 17-18 is wide enough for the 1.6 crop sensor. Well for my needs anyway and besides which I really would want to keep the a 2 lens solution. This being for reasons of lightweight and I know I would end up not taking a shot just because I couldn't be arsed to get another lens out the rucksack.

Don't get me wrong I do also take other types of shots and would ideally love the lens to cater for all circumstances but I know thats a little too much to ask.

What I have learnt so far:

Canon 17-40 4L - I know many of you will not hesitate to automatically suggest this lens. I know it has a huge following and it is an L lens after all. One of the problems is that its a bit short and I really don't want to feel my self needing that extra length in the middle of no where about the capture that once in a life time shot. Another is the price of coarse. This would really really stretch my already choked credit card to the limits I shouldn't be in. I could only do this if this lens was perfect for my needs and no other lens came close and from comparisons I have seen to the other lenses I have mentioned. It seems it is not leaps and bounds ahead.

Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG - I have read many good and bad things about this lens. Mainly that it is sharp and contrasty but suffers alot from CA and the corner sharpness is nothing to write home about. I also understand that like the other choices in my list that it is a crop factor only lens. If I were to move to full frame later I would have to loose it.

Simga 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG - If only this lens was perfect. I mean look at that range...so..so useful. Although I have seen a few fans of this lens. The images I have seen taken with it do not impress as far as sharpness is concerned. I have even read that it is good for close up's but falls down for distant landscape shots. Which of coarse is no good for me.

Great low price but being the cheapest of the bunch offerinf the greater range this kind of raises alarm bells for me. I find it strange to bring out a lens that can only be F2.8 between 17-20 as well. Why would you need it to be that wide in that range?. Certainly not for portrait shots.

Tamron 17-50 e.t.c - I have again read mixed reviews and opinions of this lens. Mainly that it is sharp but suffers from a lot of barrel distortion on the wide end and corner sharpness less that perfect.

I apologise to have droaned on for so long but I wanted you all to understand what I was looking for in a lens before asking the question of which I should go for.

I have read review after review of all the lenses mentioned and I am still struggling to make a decision that will be

right for me.

Thanks to all and your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Sie
 
The only lens from your list you seem to be comfortable with is the 17-40L. The only problem you have with it is that you think it might be too short but you have the longer zoom already 70-200. So you only have a gap of 30 mm.
I think you could live with that (crop from the 17-40 if really needed).
 
...17-85 IS? It's wide enough for you and (obviously) longer than the 17-40. For landscapes you presumbly will be stopping down quite a lot so at say f8/f11 and beyond it will be sharp enough for your needs.

:)
siejones said:
OK OK you have heard this story so many times but I need help!

It's the old story of which wide to standard zoom to choose to
replace the kit lens.

Let me tell you what I have and what I would require from said lens.

My current setup:
  • Canon 350D
  • 18-55 kit lens
  • Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro
The lenses I have been looking at:
  • Canon 17-40 4L
  • Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG
  • Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG
  • Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (out of
breath)

I would mainly use it for landscape shots and by that I mean
mountain landscape type shots. I am a hill/mountain walker

in the UK and the stunning views I sometimes see just have to be
captured. Even if it just my benefit alone for that
perfect memory.

I have had a few digital compacts in the past from "fuji 2600 zoom"
to G5 and have taken many many landscapes but although they were a
nice they were never really had the IQ and detail I wanted.
Especially considering I would really like to print out to A3 size
to adorn my walls. So what I want is a lens that delivers sharpness
and resolution enough to produce the kind of put it on the wall and
pick out the detail type quality.

This kind of photography I aspire to is the work of Colin Prior and
to produce anywhere near his work would be my ulitmate goal. I
understand he uses large format cameras and expensive gear to
produce his masterpieces and I don't pretend this think I could
match that kind of quality but I would like to get as near as I
could.

I do not require a super wide and I feel the 17-18 is wide enough
for the 1.6 crop sensor. Well for my needs anyway and besides which
I really would want to keep the a 2 lens solution. This being for
reasons of lightweight and I know I would end up not taking a shot
just because I couldn't be arsed to get another lens out the
rucksack.

Don't get me wrong I do also take other types of shots and would
ideally love the lens to cater for all circumstances but I know
thats a little too much to ask.

What I have learnt so far:

Canon 17-40 4L - I know many of you will not hesitate to
automatically suggest this lens. I know it has a huge following and
it is an L lens after all. One of the problems is that its a bit
short and I really don't want to feel my self needing that extra
length in the middle of no where about the capture that once in a
life time shot. Another is the price of coarse. This would really
really stretch my already choked credit card to the limits I
shouldn't be in. I could only do this if this lens was perfect for
my needs and no other lens came close and from comparisons I have
seen to the other lenses I have mentioned. It seems it is not leaps
and bounds ahead.

Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG - I have read many good and bad things about
this lens. Mainly that it is sharp and contrasty but suffers alot
from CA and the corner sharpness is nothing to write home about. I
also understand that like the other choices in my list that it is a
crop factor only lens. If I were to move to full frame later I
would have to loose it.

Simga 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG - If only this lens was perfect. I mean look
at that range...so..so useful. Although I have seen a few fans of
this lens. The images I have seen taken with it do not impress as
far as sharpness is concerned. I have even read that it is good for
close up's but falls down for distant landscape shots. Which of
coarse is no good for me.

Great low price but being the cheapest of the bunch offerinf the
greater range this kind of raises alarm bells for me. I find it
strange to bring out a lens that can only be F2.8 between 17-20 as
well. Why would you need it to be that wide in that range?.
Certainly not for portrait shots.

Tamron 17-50 e.t.c - I have again read mixed reviews and opinions
of this lens. Mainly that it is sharp but suffers from a lot of
barrel distortion on the wide end and corner sharpness less that
perfect.

I apologise to have droaned on for so long but I wanted you all to
understand what I was looking for in a lens before asking the
question of which I should go for.

I have read review after review of all the lenses mentioned and I
am still struggling to make a decision that will be

right for me.

Thanks to all and your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Sie
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for reply

I have considered the 17-85 but I think it's a lot of money to get IS which IMHO is not essential to landscape photography. Take IS away and you are left with IQ lesser than the 17-40 which is in the same price bracket. From what I have read it suffers from sharpness, distortion and CA problems as much (if not more so ) as the cheaper lenses I have mentioned.

Sie
 
Yes you have picked up that I really think the 17-40 along side a 50mm 1.8 sounds ideal but its all that extra cash and what I am really asking is..Is it really good enough to warrent that much extra...Is the difference between those lenses enough to justify the cost difference for what i need?...am I missing something here?
 
Agree ...

If the 18-55 is the same kit lens that came with my previous 300D
then the 17-40L is really much much better.

There are so many reviews, search for:
Michael Reichmann
fredmiranda
photodo
 
The 17-40 is probably one of the best bargains in the Canon L-series. Add a 50 f/1.8 and you're covered.

--
Cheers,

bg

'I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.'
  • Bjarne Stroustrup, inventor of the C++ programming language
Check out my gallery at http://beerguy.smugmug.com

(See profile for the gear collection)
 
The 17-40 F4L is undoubtedly a fabulous lens, but you really should consider the 3rd party F2.8 zooms as well. These are cheaper, faster, longer, lighter, and have very comparable image quality. Sigma have just revamped their 18-50 to a 'macro' version with slightly closer minimum focus distance; hopefully they'll also have improved on the few defects of the old lens (which I found to be excellent on a 350D).

With any of these lenses, the limiting factor for large prints will actually most likely be the camera - 8Mp isn't quite enough for perfectly finely detailed A3 landscape prints, as you're only printing at about 220ppi and really need closer to 300.
siejones said:
Canon 17-40 4L (...) This would really really stretch my already choked credit card to the limits I shouldn't be in.
Click to expand...
Then really, don't buy it (or at least make sure you take advantage of the Canon Extra Promotion on it).
siejones said:
Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG - I have read many good and bad things about
this lens. Mainly that it is sharp and contrasty but suffers alot
from CA and the corner sharpness is nothing to write home about.
Click to expand...
Wait and see what the macro version is like.
siejones said:
I also understand that like the other choices in my list that it is a
crop factor only lens. If I were to move to full frame later I
would have to loose it.
Click to expand...
But if you bought the 17-40L now, it would be an ultra-wide on full-frame, which you say elsewhere you don't think you need.
siejones said:
Simga 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG (...) I have even read that it is good for
close up's but falls down for distant landscape shots. Which of
coarse is no good for me.
Click to expand...
That seems unlikely, and probably due to users not understanding basic concepts such as the effects of atmospheric haze on landscape pictures.
siejones said:
Great low price but being the cheapest of the bunch offerinf the
greater range this kind of raises alarm bells for me. I find it
strange to bring out a lens that can only be F2.8 between 17-20 as
well. Why would you need it to be that wide in that range?.
Click to expand...
Simply because all variable aperture zoom lenses are faster at the wide end; this is half a stop faster than comparable lenses all though its range.
siejones said:
Tamron 17-50 e.t.c - I have again read mixed reviews and opinions
of this lens. Mainly that it is sharp but suffers from a lot of
barrel distortion on the wide end and corner sharpness less that
perfect.
Click to expand...
Barrel distortion is rarely much of problem for landscapes, where you tend not to have many perfectly straight lines anyway.

Seriously, if you can't afford the 17-40L, buy one of the F2.8 zooms instead, they're both very good lenses indeed. Also go to a local camera shop and see if you can try each of these lenses on your camera, take a few test shots and reach your own conclusion on which is best for your personal needs (not anyone else's).
Andy
 
Well I have the 17-40L f4,70-200L f4 and the 50 f1.8.It is a very good combo.I had the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC and sold it.It was a very good lens but yes it had CA and vignetting at the wide end.It was a fast focuser but not as fast as the USM.The L I think has a little better resolution.In the other hand it had aparture 2.8 and 5-6 mm extra reache(the 18-50 is not really a 50mm but a 45-46mm).
 
17-40 is definitly a good lens, but it costs almost the double price and is quite short on the long end and it is only F4. FTM and L-Build quality is nice, but has its price. If i had the money, I would rather spend few hundred dollars more and buy my dream lens EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS USM...

I have the Sigma 17-70 and like it and would recommend it. Of course it is not the perfect lens with corner to corner sharpness (but much much better than the 18-55 kit lens).

A friends had the Sigma 18-50 F2.8, he was not happy with it, many CAs and lot of purple fringing. It is strange than many people seem to like that lens. I would not recommend it, maybe wait for the new "macro" version. Could be better than the old version.

If you compare the Tamron 17-50 stopped down to F4 ( http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm ) with the 17-40 from Canon, the Tamron seems to be better (except CA at 17mm), but it has a quite high field curvature.

So i would recommend the Sigma 17-70 or the Tamron 17-50 for best price/performance ratio. Or wait for first reviews of the new Sigma 18-50 F2.8 macro or for the recently announced Tokina 16-50 F2.8.

But in the end it is your decission > :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top