replacement for 17-70mm

[33L]

Hi guys.

I have the sigma 17-70mm and whilst out shooting today and reviewing pictures agianst other lenses i use, i have come to the conclusion that its not as sharp as i would want it to be.

I originally bought the lens as a replacement for the kit lens on my 400D and it was a massive improvement. Since then i have invested in primes add other sharper glass and i think coupled with the 50D pixel density, the lens has lost its shine.

what would you recommed as an alternative thats is sharp and fits in my current lens line up.

Lee

[rgrebby]

would be interested in what people think, I have the same lens but only a 400D.

[whitey]

possibly a Tamron 17-50? hear alot of good things about it

[dcash29]

That lens should be pretty sharp.

My advice would be, visit your local dealer and take test shots with your new choice before purchase and compared with your sigma.
I had the sigma and later swapped it for a Canon 17-40, i didnt notice any difference in sharpness and reget losing the focal length.

Dave

[33L]

could it need a calibration with the 50D its not just a little softer, but then i am comparing it to the 50mm 1.4 i used today. It just seemed really soft and only really noticed once i moved to the 50D. I dont want to lose it as its a great focal range and i feel 50mm to short for a walk about. I would rather lose the mm of the bottom of the range say a 24-70mm lens. Even if it meant investing in a 2nd body (30D) to stick the 10-22mm on if i needed a full range.

I really dont know and wouldnt mind if replacing the lens with sometihng with a 2.8 constant aperture.

[Slapo]

could it need a calibration with the 50D its not just a little softer, but then i am comparing it to the 50mm 1.4 i used today. It just seemed really soft and only really noticed once i moved to the 50D. I dont want to lose it as its a great focal range and i feel 50mm to short for a walk about. I would rather lose the mm of the bottom of the range say a 24-70mm lens. Even if it meant investing in a 2nd body (30D) to stick the 10-22mm on if i needed a full range.

I really dont know and wouldnt mind if replacing the lens with sometihng with a 2.8 constant aperture.

Do you realise you're comparing a zoom to a prime?
I know that's a daft question, but (as) you (very likely) know (already), primes tend to be sharper than zooms.
That and asking a Sigma service for calibration might not be a bad idea.

[dcash29]

Originally Posted by 33L View Post
could it need a calibration with the 50D its not just a little softer, but then i am comparing it to the 50mm 1.4 i used today. It just seemed really soft and only really noticed once i moved to the 50D.

I think you have answered your question, and if the lens was fine before the 50D i dont think Sigma servicing is necessary

Dave

[33L]

i know i am comparing against a prime. Is it worth spending money on a calibration against the cost of the lens. Its out of warranty so i'm a bit stuck on that. What is the cost of it these days.
I think i will have to pop into my local jacobs that i know well and have a play with alternatives to see if it has gone soft. It hasnt had any bumps that i can think of!

[33L]

I think you have answered your question, and if the lens was fine before the 50D i dont think Sigma servicing is necessary

Dave

i found the 50 1.8 soft on the 50D, i am wondering if the 50D really shows shortfalls of lenses this well. If so i am going ot have to raid the piggy bank some more.

[Slapo]

i found the 50 1.8 soft on the 50D, i am wondering if the 50D really shows shortfalls of lenses this well. If so i am going ot have to raid the piggy bank some more.

Could you post test RAW shots from the lenses you compared?

[33L]

i havent got any side by side tests but just noticed how crisp my shots from my 50mm were compared to shots with the 17-70. Im sure i can set some up tomorrow though

[TheWombat]

I have heard that the 50D does indeed show up weaknesses in lenses.Indeed if you were once happy with the 17-70 on your old cam that would appear to be the case. Seems to me you are looking at getting either the efs 17-55 f/2.8 or the 17-40L f/4.There are quite a few threads on FM highlighting similiar probs.
Pete.

[33L]

i dont want ot blame the equipment but its not the fastest lens and really cant afford to stop it down in some situations to increase sharpness.
tobe fair i am compairng it against the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 which are both very sharp lenses. Maybe i'm just spoilt now.

how does the 24-70mm compare to such lenses

[PD_BARBS]

The 24-70 and the 24-105 L lenses are both highly rated and very sharp. You could also look at some the cheaper options such as the Tamron 28-75 or the Sigma 24-70. Come in at less than half the price of the canon lenses and both have got pretty good reviews. At saying that the Tamron 17-50 is really well regarded, if you could do without the extra length.

I have the Tamron 28-75, although i am not using it on a 50D, I am very happy with it, it compares to my 50mm in sharpness, in the right light.

[33L]

After looking at the originals today, i have restored faith in the lens. It seemed that some of the pp i did to recover blown highlights made the images soft.

I am quite releived as the lens fits nicely in my lens line up and really didnt want to upgrade further.