Hard to decide what lens to buy

[Jason D]

13 years ago, I bought Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for my Canon 30D. I bought my 70D with the 18-135 STM in 2013. I have some telephoto lens for the long reach. I mostly use the 18-135. The Tamron is used for low light, such as stars at night. And I was happy with my lenses. I have never tested the sharpness of my lenses except doing the MFA.

A month ago, I bought the m100 kit and noticed the kit lens was very sharp, sharper than the 18-135 and the Tamron. Some people said that my m100 kit lens was decentered etc, so I started to do test shots on brick wall. My kit lens is fine but I find the my Tamron is really bad despite many people say it is a sharp lens. The corners are soft, specially the upper right corner. Perhaps, it is truly decentered.

I recently bought a 90D with 18-135 usm kit. The kit lens is OK and I will use it almost of the time, but I want something that I can used in low light. Specially, for night sky. And I don't want to spend too much on the lens.

So, so far, my options are:

1) Repair the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. But it is out of warranty and I don't know if it can be repaired, how good it is going to be after repair and don't want to spend too much on repair.

2) Buy a ef-s 24mm F2.8 for the night sky. Although I used to use the Tamron zoom to do that in the past, but 24mm is mostly used. It will cost around can$140. For normal shooting, I like to use zoom lens and don't like to change lens often. So, this lens will most likely be used at night only. I only shot night sky once or twice a year.

3) Buy a Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS. This is a 10 year old lens too. It is not sold many these days. So, in order to get the Sigma warranty, I need to pay full price from dealers. That is can$580. I can get it from Amazon for can$420, but it doesn't have Canadian warranty.

3) Buy a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4. This perhaps is a remake of the old 17-70, but at least it has the Contemporary label and it is a newer model comparing to the Sigma 17-50. However, it is F2.8-4 and not the EX/Art line. It may not be as good.

4) Sigma 18-35 F1.8 Art. Very nice F1.8, but it is only 2x zoom in not very useful range and it is not cheap. Not sure if it is a good idea to invest that much on APS-C lens now a day.

5) Canon ef-s 17-55 F2.8. Perhaps it is a nice lens, but it is old. Maybe it is discontinued already.

Basically, I am looking for something that is better than the 18-135 lens.

Any thoughts?

Below I attach 2 photos from my Tarmon 17-50. Take a look at the top right corner, you will see how bad it is.


17mm F2.8


17mm F5.6

And this is the night sky that I am talking about.


I need at least F2.8 for it.

 

[Aoi Usagi]

13 years ago, I bought Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for my Canon 30D. I bought my 70D with the 18-135 STM in 2013. I have some telephoto lens for the long reach. I mostly use the 18-135. The Tamron is used for low light, such as stars at night. And I was happy with my lenses. I have never tested the sharpness of my lenses except doing the MFA.

A month ago, I bought the m100 kit and noticed the kit lens was very sharp, sharper than the 18-135 and the Tamron. Some people said that my m100 kit lens was decentered etc, so I started to do test shots on brick wall. My kit lens is fine but I find the my Tamron is really bad despite many people say it is a sharp lens. The corners are soft, specially the upper right corner. Perhaps, it is truly decentered.

I recently bought a 90D with 18-135 usm kit. The kit lens is OK and I will use it almost of the time, but I want something that I can used in low light. Specially, for night sky. And I don't want to spend too much on the lens.

So, so far, my options are:

1) Repair the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. But it is out of warranty and I don't know if it can be repaired, how good it is going to be after repair and don't want to spend too much on repair.

I doubt getting this lens repaired will be worth it. More than likely Tamron will say the lens is within specs and give it back to you the same way and you loose inspection fee and shipping fees.

2) Buy a ef-s 24mm F2.8 for the night sky. Although I used to use the Tamron zoom to do that in the past, but 24mm is mostly used. It will cost around can$140. For normal shooting, I like to use zoom lens and don't like to change lens often. So, this lens will most likely be used at night only. I only shot night sky once or twice a year.

The 24mm F2.8 STM is a great lens. Totally worth the asking price. You may be able to get a refurbished copy for about US$110 from Canon themselves.

3) Buy a Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS. This is a 10 year old lens too. It is not sold many these days. So, in order to get the Sigma warranty, I need to pay full price from dealers. That is can$580. I can get it from Amazon for can$420, but it doesn't have Canadian warranty.

3) Buy a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4. This perhaps is a remake of the old 17-70, but at least it has the Contemporary label and it is a newer model comparing to the Sigma 17-50. However, it is F2.8-4 and not the EX/Art line. It may not be as good.

4) Sigma 18-35 F1.8 Art. Very nice F1.8, but it is only 2x zoom in not very useful range and it is not cheap. Not sure if it is a good idea to invest that much on APS-C lens now a day.

Both Sigma lenses (17-70, 17-50)should be decently sharp, but so-so build quality. Their focus motors are loud and the front barrel rotates when focusing. The 18-35/1.8 is a great lens if you can handle the price, weight and sometimes focus issues (sometimes it just doesn't focus through the OVF, Liveview has no issues). A Sigma dock might be needed with this lens.

If you are worried about investing in APS-C, I wouldn't buy anything.

5) Canon ef-s 17-55 F2.8. Perhaps it is a nice lens, but it is old. Maybe it is discontinued already.

Basically, I am looking for something that is better than the 18-135 lens.

Nothing is better than the 18-135mm when considering its focal range and focusing system.

Any thoughts?

You have to pay for something fast and with good IQ. Unfortunately there is no free lunch. Maybe try to get a used copy off ebay or local ads. Sell the Tamron (please explain to potential buyers about its issue) and the 18-135mm and maybe you can recuperate some of the expense for your new lens.

Below I attach 2 photos from my Tarmon 17-50. Take a look at the top right corner, you will see how bad it is.

Your test is flawed in that the right side is farther away then the left side. But I am going to take your word that it is decentered because that isn't the main topic.

17mm F2.8


17mm F5.6

And this is the night sky that I am talking about.

That's a wonderful image.

I need at least F2.8 for it.

Good luck.

 

[Dave]

2) Buy a ef-s 24mm F2.8 for the night sky. Although I used to use the Tamron zoom to do that in the past, but 24mm is mostly used. It will cost around can$140. For normal shooting, I like to use zoom lens and don't like to change lens often. So, this lens will most likely be used at night only. I only shot night sky once or twice a year.

The 24mm F2.8 STM is a great lens. Totally worth the asking price. You may be able to get a refurbished copy for about US$110 from Canon themselves.

I have the 24mm f/2.8 and really enjoy it. However, I'm not sure night sky shots are one of its strong points.

5) Canon ef-s 17-55 F2.8. Perhaps it is a nice lens, but it is old. Maybe it is discontinued already.

Basically, I am looking for something that is better than the 18-135 lens.

Nothing is better than the 18-135mm when considering its focal range and focusing system.

I have both the 18-135mm "nano" and the 17-55mm f/2.8 and use them for different things. The 18-135mm is my go-to single travel lens when I want to lighten the load while the (old-but-not discontinued) 17-55mm is my fast and flexible people and scenery lens. Neither one is "better", but there are situations where one is preferred over the other.

 

[Jason D]

13 years ago, I bought Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for my Canon 30D. I bought my 70D with the 18-135 STM in 2013. I have some telephoto lens for the long reach. I mostly use the 18-135. The Tamron is used for low light, such as stars at night. And I was happy with my lenses. I have never tested the sharpness of my lenses except doing the MFA.

A month ago, I bought the m100 kit and noticed the kit lens was very sharp, sharper than the 18-135 and the Tamron. Some people said that my m100 kit lens was decentered etc, so I started to do test shots on brick wall. My kit lens is fine but I find the my Tamron is really bad despite many people say it is a sharp lens. The corners are soft, specially the upper right corner. Perhaps, it is truly decentered.

I recently bought a 90D with 18-135 usm kit. The kit lens is OK and I will use it almost of the time, but I want something that I can used in low light. Specially, for night sky. And I don't want to spend too much on the lens.

So, so far, my options are:

1) Repair the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. But it is out of warranty and I don't know if it can be repaired, how good it is going to be after repair and don't want to spend too much on repair.

I doubt getting this lens repaired will be worth it. More than likely Tamron will say the lens is within specs and give it back to you the same way and you loose inspection fee and shipping fees.

Yes, that is what I think too. Likely just wast of money.

2) Buy a ef-s 24mm F2.8 for the night sky. Although I used to use the Tamron zoom to do that in the past, but 24mm is mostly used. It will cost around can$140. For normal shooting, I like to use zoom lens and don't like to change lens often. So, this lens will most likely be used at night only. I only shot night sky once or twice a year.

The 24mm F2.8 STM is a great lens. Totally worth the asking price. You may be able to get a refurbished copy for about US$110 from Canon themselves.

I just ordered a new one from Canon.

3) Buy a Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS. This is a 10 year old lens too. It is not sold many these days. So, in order to get the Sigma warranty, I need to pay full price from dealers. That is can$580. I can get it from Amazon for can$420, but it doesn't have Canadian warranty.

3) Buy a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4. This perhaps is a remake of the old 17-70, but at least it has the Contemporary label and it is a newer model comparing to the Sigma 17-50. However, it is F2.8-4 and not the EX/Art line. It may not be as good.

4) Sigma 18-35 F1.8 Art. Very nice F1.8, but it is only 2x zoom in not very useful range and it is not cheap. Not sure if it is a good idea to invest that much on APS-C lens now a day.

Both Sigma lenses (17-70, 17-50)should be decently sharp, but so-so build quality. Their focus motors are loud and the front barrel rotates when focusing. The 18-35/1.8 is a great lens if you can handle the price, weight and sometimes focus issues (sometimes it just doesn't focus through the OVF, Liveview has no issues). A Sigma dock might be needed with this lens.

If you are worried about investing in APS-C, I wouldn't buy anything.

I don't want to spend too much on APS-C. $500 or so is OK.

5) Canon ef-s 17-55 F2.8. Perhaps it is a nice lens, but it is old. Maybe it is discontinued already.

Basically, I am looking for something that is better than the 18-135 lens.

Nothing is better than the 18-135mm when considering its focal range and focusing system.

This is why I have it on my camera most of the time. It is good enough for most of the cases.

Any thoughts?

You have to pay for something fast and with good IQ. Unfortunately there is no free lunch. Maybe try to get a used copy off ebay or local ads. Sell the Tamron (please explain to potential buyers about its issue) and the 18-135mm and maybe you can recuperate some of the expense for your new lens.

Below I attach 2 photos from my Tarmon 17-50. Take a look at the top right corner, you will see how bad it is.

Your test is flawed in that the right side is farther away then the left side. But I am going to take your word that it is decentered because that isn't the main topic.

I tried to be perpendicular to the wall. Also, the lens is at its infinity, so the right side should be in focus.

And this is the night sky that I am talking about.

That's a wonderful image.

Thank you! It is hard to find a dark place to see the milky way in this modern world.

Good luck.

 

[Jason D]

2) Buy a ef-s 24mm F2.8 for the night sky. Although I used to use the Tamron zoom to do that in the past, but 24mm is mostly used. It will cost around can$140. For normal shooting, I like to use zoom lens and don't like to change lens often. So, this lens will most likely be used at night only. I only shot night sky once or twice a year.

The 24mm F2.8 STM is a great lens. Totally worth the asking price. You may be able to get a refurbished copy for about US$110 from Canon themselves.

I have the 24mm f/2.8 and really enjoy it. However, I'm not sure night sky shots are one of its strong points.

Good to hear this. I just ordered one. Hopefully will get it by Tuesday. What do you use it for?

For night sky, the faster the lens the better. There is nothing that is wide angle, large aperture and cheap. It doesn't need to be a zoom lens. 17mm F1.8 will do. Even manual focusing will work well. I have a M42 adapter, but there is nothing that is wide angle and faster.

5) Canon ef-s 17-55 F2.8. Perhaps it is a nice lens, but it is old. Maybe it is discontinued already.

Basically, I am looking for something that is better than the 18-135 lens.

Nothing is better than the 18-135mm when considering its focal range and focusing system.

I have both the 18-135mm "nano" and the 17-55mm f/2.8 and use them for different things. The 18-135mm is my go-to single travel lens when I want to lighten the load while the (old-but-not discontinued) 17-55mm is my fast and flexible people and scenery lens. Neither one is "better", but there are situations where one is preferred over the other.

That is why I want to consider the Sigma 17-50.

 

[Dave]

2) Buy a ef-s 24mm F2.8 for the night sky. Although I used to use the Tamron zoom to do that in the past, but 24mm is mostly used. It will cost around can$140. For normal shooting, I like to use zoom lens and don't like to change lens often. So, this lens will most likely be used at night only. I only shot night sky once or twice a year.

The 24mm F2.8 STM is a great lens. Totally worth the asking price. You may be able to get a refurbished copy for about US$110 from Canon themselves.

I have the 24mm f/2.8 and really enjoy it. However, I'm not sure night sky shots are one of its strong points.

Good to hear this. I just ordered one. Hopefully will get it by Tuesday. What do you use it for?

For night sky, the faster the lens the better. There is nothing that is wide angle, large aperture and cheap. It doesn't need to be a zoom lens. 17mm F1.8 will do. Even manual focusing will work well. I have a M42 adapter, but there is nothing that is wide angle and faster.

It's usually with me when I'm out shooting with one of my two longer primes or my 70-300. Having something wide that is easy to carry often comes in handy. An example: I shoot high school tennis, and I swap my pancake for the 70-300 after matches to take group shots. Any distortion is addressed by DPP. Another: I use it for what little street photography I do during our travels.


Madagascar

5) Canon ef-s 17-55 F2.8. Perhaps it is a nice lens, but it is old. Maybe it is discontinued already.

Basically, I am looking for something that is better than the 18-135 lens.

Nothing is better than the 18-135mm when considering its focal range and focusing system.

I have both the 18-135mm "nano" and the 17-55mm f/2.8 and use them for different things. The 18-135mm is my go-to single travel lens when I want to lighten the load while the (old-but-not discontinued) 17-55mm is my fast and flexible people and scenery lens. Neither one is "better", but there are situations where one is preferred over the other.

That is why I want to consider the Sigma 17-50.

I'm inflexible about using Canon lenses.

 

[Sailor Blue]

2) Buy a ef-s 24mm F2.8 for the night sky. Although I used to use the Tamron zoom to do that in the past, but 24mm is mostly used. It will cost around can$140. For normal shooting, I like to use zoom lens and don't like to change lens often. So, this lens will most likely be used at night only. I only shot night sky once or twice a year.

The 24mm F2.8 STM is a great lens. Totally worth the asking price. You may be able to get a refurbished copy for about US$110 from Canon themselves.

I have the 24mm f/2.8 and really enjoy it. However, I'm not sure night sky shots are one of its strong points.

Good to hear this. I just ordered one. Hopefully will get it by Tuesday. What do you use it for?

For night sky, the faster the lens the better. There is nothing that is wide angle, large aperture and cheap.

One lens you left off the list is the one I bought for my new 5DR S, the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 PRO FX, which is $400 at Adorama.

If you Google you can find lots of reviews.

I was forced to give up photography for awhile for health reasons so I have only done a few test shots. I was very happily surprised at the resolution I got.

I put one of my quick test shots on Dropbox - link below. I removed the numbers of the license plate but check out the words on the plate. The straight out of camera shot was a JPG at ISO 100, f/8, 1/400sec, and 18mm. I suspect that f/8 is close to the aperture that yields the highest resolution.

I haven't put anything on Dropbox in awhile and it has changed. Please let me know if you can't download the image.

Dropbox - Classical MG in Garage - Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 PRO FX

The lens is large and very heavy at 950g. Because of the weight of the combined camera and lens using a tripod can cause the tripod head to creep. The design of the lens doesn't allow for the use of a tripod mounting ring so I mount the camera and lens on a slide rail to put the center of gravity over the tripod head. After these photos I added an L Bracket, etc.





I used some gear I already had but if I were to buy new here is what I would get.

eBay - Rail Nodal 200mm Slide Plate Quick Release Clamp For Camera Macro Photography SM

eBay - QR L Plate Bracket For Canon EOS 5DS R 7D 5D MARK III II 6D 750D 700D 650D 450D 799975144962

eBay - QR-50 Quick Release Plate Clamp Mount Compatible For Arca SWISS Tripod Ball SA

It doesn't need to be a zoom lens. 17mm F1.8 will do. Even manual focusing will work well. I have a M42 adapter, but there is nothing that is wide angle and faster.

5) Canon ef-s 17-55 F2.8. Perhaps it is a nice lens, but it is old. Maybe it is discontinued already.

Basically, I am looking for something that is better than the 18-135 lens.

Nothing is better than the 18-135mm when considering its focal range and focusing system.

I have both the 18-135mm "nano" and the 17-55mm f/2.8 and use them for different things. The 18-135mm is my go-to single travel lens when I want to lighten the load while the (old-but-not discontinued) 17-55mm is my fast and flexible people and scenery lens. Neither one is "better", but there are situations where one is preferred over the other.

That is why I want to consider the Sigma 17-50.

--
Living and loving it in Pattaya, Thailand. Canon 5DS R & 7D - See the gear list for the rest.

 

[Andy01]

2) Buy a ef-s 24mm F2.8 for the night sky.

Don't assume that every fast lens is good for stars. I have a EF 35 f2 IS, which is a very sharp lens, but the coma (even at f2.8) is awful (using my 6D ii), and renders the lens essentially useless for stars.

I really don't know what the 24mm is like for coma, but worth checking this while you are still inside a returns window.

Colin

 

[jvc1]

Being parallel to the wall is important even if you are focused to infinity, especially wide open. If the focus point is the center or left side, i'd expect the right side to be OOF a little in your example. I'd do a better test before you try to repair it or give up on it.

 

[Jason D]

Thanks for the suggestion. I think this lens will break my back.

Thanks.

 

[Jason D]

Thanks for the explanation. Nice picture.

 

[Jason D]

2) Buy a ef-s 24mm F2.8 for the night sky.

Don't assume that every fast lens is good for stars. I have a EF 35 f2 IS, which is a very sharp lens, but the coma (even at f2.8) is awful (using my 6D ii), and renders the lens essentially useless for stars.

I really don't know what the 24mm is like for coma, but worth checking this while you are still inside a returns window.

Colin

Good point. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Jason D]

Being parallel to the wall is important even if you are focused to infinity, especially wide open. If the focus point is the center or left side, i'd expect the right side to be OOF a little in your example. I'd do a better test before you try to repair it or give up on it.

Thanks, but the whole wall is in focus.

I was about 10 meters away from the wall. The focus length is 17mm, F2.8 and crop sensor. Plug these in a Depth of Field calculator. It says anywhere between 6.5 meters from me and infinity is in focus. So, the whole wall is in focus.

 

[jvc1]

Being parallel to the wall is important even if you are focused to infinity, especially wide open. If the focus point is the center or left side, i'd expect the right side to be OOF a little in your example. I'd do a better test before you try to repair it or give up on it.

Thanks, but the whole wall is in focus.

I was about 10 meters away from the wall. The focus length is 17mm, F2.8 and crop sensor. Plug these in a Depth of Field calculator. It says anywhere between 6.5 meters from me and infinity is in focus. So, the whole wall is in focus.

I'm only suggesting that before you get a new lens, or spend money on a repair, you should do the test more carefully. You say "the whole wall is in focus" but you've determined that the lens is decentered because the top right is out of focus. It might really be decentered but the top right is also further away than any other part of the image. To accurately test for decentering the wall should fill the entire frame (the bottom 1/3 of your test images is sidewalk, maybe the bottom right would look as out of focus as the top right) and the camera should be parallel to the wall. both horizontally and vertically.

Also, a DOF calculator gives you an area of "acceptable" focus. it doesn't mean that every part of the area given is tack sharp.

--
I keep some of my favorite pictures here,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129958940@N03/

 

[Jason D]

Received the lens today. Did some shots on family. Very sharp. I will do my favor brick wall shots soon.

One thing I notice is that it is tight to put it on. The first half of turn is normal; the second half of turn is a bit tight and feel dry. I don't have this feel with my other lenses.

 

[jvc1]

Received the lens today. Did some shots on family. Very sharp. I will do my favor brick wall shots soon.

One thing I notice is that it is tight to put it on. The first half of turn is normal; the second half of turn is a bit tight and feel dry. I don't have this feel with my other lenses.

Mine feels the same.

 

[Jason D]

Received the lens today. Did some shots on family. Very sharp. I will do my favor brick wall shots soon.

One thing I notice is that it is tight to put it on. The first half of turn is normal; the second half of turn is a bit tight and feel dry. I don't have this feel with my other lenses.

Mine feels the same.

I remember I tried a copy a couple years ago. The same feel. Wonder why it has not been improved.

 

[User4286416121]

Jason D wrote

Thanks, but the whole wall is in focus.

I was about 10 meters away from the wall. The focus length is 17mm, F2.8 and crop sensor. Plug these in a Depth of Field calculator. It says anywhere between 6.5 meters from me and infinity is in focus. So, the whole wall is in focus.

My reading of this is slightly different. DOF calculator says 6.5 in front of object. So 3.5 to infinity. This would put a lot os stuff in "acceptable" focus perhaps. But focusing on infinity seems off.

 

[Jason D]

 

[jvc1]

What's the argument? You're test of the other lens didn't prove anything. At least you're close to parallel to the wall this time. Bottom corners look great (note the sarcasm).

--
I keep some of my favorite pictures here,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129958940@N03/