Mid-zoom for my dad

[Mother Goose]

My dad is looking for a mid-range zoom lens for a Canon XT 350D, and unfortunately, I'm not sure what to recommend. The Canon mid-range zooms don't tend to be very good until you get into the 17-55 f/2.8 or 17-40 f/4 L, but both of them are rather pricey.

He needs something:

Relatively cheap (say, under £250)
Relatively light
In the 17-50 mm range


I've already used (and sold) a 17-85 IS and I wasn't happy with it, so that's off the list. I've never actually used third party lenses but I know some people around here use the Tamron 17-50 so I'm curious about that.

(Before someone recommends the nifty-fifty, I should say I already lent him mine. He would like, in addition, something a little wider)

[Albedo]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and I can whole-heartedly recommend the lens. It's very sharp, pretty quick to focus and is good in low light with the f2.8. Feels well built also.

When I was buying I discounted these for the following reasons:

- 17-40L (more expensive, only f4 so not such a good low-light option, not planning on going FF anytime soon).

- Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 (not wide enough at the 24mm end - I wanted 17mm. But a very good lens and if I'd had their 10-20 I'd've gone with this perhaps).

- Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (another good lens, but not as good as the Tamron by most accounts and lacks the extra mm at the wide end).

If you look through my photos, a lot are taken with the Tamron.

[Grahame]

I have very recently bought the Sigma 24 -70 f2.8 lens. Comes in around the £250 mark and is very sharp in my opinion. I am more than happy with the results from it

[Mother Goose]

From here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/620878/999999), it looks like more people recommend the Tamron 17-50 instead of the Sigma 24-70. I'll look more into both.

[foodpoison]

I can vouch for both the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 24-70.
On that forum, the people don't sound as if they know what they're talking about, and seem very biased towards Tamron regardless of the undeniably good image quality that the Sigma can produce.

Basically, if you want to go wider, get the Tamron.
If you want to zoom further and use it on a FF camera, get the Sigma.

[Mother Goose]

New info: He wants something CHEAPER than the Tamron 17-50 at $400. Now, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

What are his options?

[Albedo]

New info: He wants something CHEAPER than the Tamron 17-50 at $400. Now, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

What are his options?

Limited?

Maybe something secondhand?

I think I saw a Sigma 17-70mm go for £150 in the Sale forum... :shrug:

[Jamougha]

18-55mm IS

[Mother Goose]

18-55mm IS

Yeah, that's what I thought. There's really no good zoom lens under $400.

[reddeathdrinker]

What about a Tokina 19-35mm? I had one with my D200, very impressive lens for the price. Slightly soft wide open, but stopped down to f/5.6, was as sharp as lenses twice the price.

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is a gem of a lens as well - and not too expensive either (especially 2nd hand!)

[idlemonkey]

What about the 18-55 without IS?

Certainly under the budget and although pretty cheaply made can produce some great results!

[foodpoison]

The Sigma 24-60 (I've got it, it's wonderful) can be had at onestop digital for £185.