Canon EOS lens dilemma

thecornflake

thecornflake

Messages
186
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I'm looking to get a decent 'all-round' lens for my 1100d. I'm starting to get people asking for more shoots, a lot of them outdoors, and also I'm doing a few shots for a relative's wedding soon. I have the 50mm F1.8, kit lens and an old 35-105 EF. I'm happy using the 50 for shoots but sometimes I need something a little shorter so I'm aiming for a decent zoom in the lower end of the range. Being able to go wide enough to get some ok landscape shots would be a bonus. Budget is up to £300 and I'd consider second hand.

I'm currently looking at the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 and the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 as they are both £350 new on Amazon, and seem to get good reviews. My dilemma is are they good enough, or should keep an eye out for a better lens second hand?

I would possibly consider another good prime if it was worth sacrificing the flexibility for much better iq, I've actually had my eye on the 40mm for a while.

If I can narrow it down to one or two definite contenders I'm thinking about hiring one of them for the wedding (I'm only doing a few family shots after at the reception, so it should be fairly easy but I obviously still want to make sure the shots are as good as possble as there isn't another photographer on the day).
 
If your going to hire then i would recommend the Canon 17-55mm f2.8
Stonker of a lens for crop bodies.
 
I've heard the 17-50 is also worth considering. With the cropped sensor I'm not fussed about missing the extra 20mm at the wide end.

Have also seen amazon reviews of the Canon EF17-40mm f/4.0L which I could possibly stretch to second hand.
 
17-40 is a slow lens designed for full frame bodies.
For a wedding i would be wanting f2.8 lenses unless i could gaurantee that i didnt need the extra stop of light and/or i was using flash.

Personally if you are buying look at the tamron 17-50 f2.8
If you are renting go for the 17-55 f2.8
 
Just to clarify I'm not looking for a lens specifically for weddings. It's mainly for general outdoor portrait work. As the wedding is soon and I need a good lens for it (although I could get away with what I have already if I had to) it's a good opportunity to hire a lens I'm considering to buy in order to get decents shots and try before buying.

Will look into the Tamron 17-50, that's a better range for me than 28-75.
 
border_all said:
What about a prime

50mm f1.4
Or
85mm f1.8
Click to expand...

I already have the 1.8 50mm, I can't justify the cost of the 1.4 for the amount of use that aperture would get. 85mm on cropped sensor is too long for me for most things I shoot.
My main reason for looking for another lens is covering the wider end and having something a bit more flexible. I can do most things with the 50 but now and then I wold like something a little wider. So a good quality zoom somewhere in the 17-80 range would do this plus also serve as a good walkaround for days out etc.
 
Ok, I'm going to add into the list the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 as I can fit a second hand one into my budget. Fits the range I need, 2.8 through the range and seems to get very good reviews overall.
 
Yeah, I've heard about the dust issues.

I think after some more reading up on the options, it's either the Tamron 17-50 2.8 vs the Canon 17-55 2.8, which comes down to whether the Canon is worth spending the extra money.
 
On APS-C I went for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, a lot more compact and a fraction of the price of the Canon 17-55mm. There's also the Sigma 18-50nn f2.8 and AFAIK you can get the Sigma and Tamron with IS. I think...????
 
I had the Canon it's horses for courses you pay more sell it for more so total cost is about the same, I could not get along with it on the 7D I sold it and bought the 24-105 f4 if it's wide enough for you as I had the canon 10-22mm as well.

I shoot Sony now due really to an eye issue so still like Canon a lot please Canon owners don't shoot me down lol but the 17-55mm f2.8 was my least favourite canon lens I just could not get along with it
 
I am thinking Tamron, and possibly the non-VC one as it's supposed to be a little sharper, plus do I really need to pay a bit extra for VC at this focal range?

It's hard to justify the Canon at the price.
 
thecornflake said:
I am thinking Tamron, and possibly the non-VC one as it's supposed to be a little sharper, plus do I really need to pay a bit extra for VC at this focal range?

It's hard to justify the Canon at the price.
Click to expand...
Must admit I agree, in the interest of disclosure I have the sony 16-50 f2.8 that I got as a kit lens IS is built in the body on Sony

The only final point I would mention is if you think you may go full frame any time soon a lens you could use on either would cost less in the long run
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top