Another poll to TRY and help make my mind up!!!

Which???

  • Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, with 10-20/22 UWA

    Votes: 17 39.5%

  • Canon 15-85 IS USM

    Votes: 3 7.0%

  • Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

    Votes: 8 18.6%

  • Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • Other!!!

    Votes: 9 20.9%
  • Total voters
    43
topcatproduction

topcatproduction

Messages
500
Edit My Images
Yes
This is for a general lens- I dont shoot any one thing more than another, and indoors low light is almost as likely as outdoor in summer!

I am waiting to buy a 70-300 IS USM for my long range, and asides from macro and a couple of manual lenses this will be my main lens.

The problem is I like to be able to shoot w i d e, and compromising anything is never as good as having the right tool for the job- so I understand I may have to get a 10-20/22 for the wide stuff, my current sigma 17-70 is just about ok but would like a bit more width!

I have put my first options in the poll, any other ideas please post and help me out!!! I just want a really good sharp lens that will focus quickly, and I would like IS and fast focussing. Body upgrade is also on the cards at the mo but glass comes first. Oh- I'm staying with a crop!!

Thanks all- ANY info much appreciated.

Edit- it would be nice to hear that the 24-70 doesn't storm ahead in terms of IQ as it will cost double with a UWA as well, and I know the Tamron is supposed to be good but not very good build quality? I want something that will last a long time!
 
Whats your body upgrade likely to be ? If you go Full frame some Lenses will not be safe to use on the new camera.
 
You would be better off asking for comments on the lenses.

You canot buy a lens on the result of a poll. It needs to be your decision dependent on what you want it for and your budget.

Would you run a poll to decide wht you are going to wear today?

Not trying to be harsh here just realistic.:)
 
Voted other as a poll only tell you what we would buy, not what you should buy.

You need to make a choice. Quality or compromise.
FOr absolute quality you go for the Tokina 11-16mm for your ultra wide and then the Canon 17-55mm for your general purpose stuff. You can take a hit on build quality and handling by substituting the Canon 17-55mm for the Tamron 17-50mm. I had a Tamron 28-75mm and the build quality while cheaper would still last plenty of time - it's not bad, just not as good as Canon.

The 15-85mm is reportedly a very sharp lens, and based on what I have seen/read it would be a fine choice. The compromise it the fact it is not F2.8 and so not so good for the low light stuff.
 
24-70 is a good range on both FF and crop. Maybe not quite wide enough on crop for all situations but a UWA will cover that for you in time. The Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 works well, is fast to AF, sharp, affordable.

Quick pricing from Mifsuds's latest AP ad - Canon 24-70 £997. Sigma 24-70 EX IF HSM £649, EX DG £389, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 £397, f/3.5 £469. (All prices for new). They also have a 24-70 f/2.8 L listed in the 2nd hand section for £799.
 
Sorry- all comments more than welcome!! My body upgrade will most likely be to the newest xxD I can afford, which will either be the 50 or if and when it comes out- 60D. I very much doubt I will ever go FF as I like the extra reach I get with a crop, and my very non professional photography does not justify FF. Plus with motor sports high FPS helps.

Is the Tokina UWA better than the Canon or Sigma alternatives?

It seems a real shame the Canon 15-85 is not a f/2.8, all the reviews really rate it for being sharp and good IQ, but f/5.6 on the long end kinda sucks for an expensive lens!

Realistically I wouldn't be able to afford the 24-70 AND UWA together, which would leave me missing out under 24mm...

So- from my very limited knowledge I would say its most likely to be the Canon 17-55.....
 
topcatproduction said:
....
Realistically I wouldn't be able to afford the 24-70 AND UWA together, which would leave me missing out under 24mm...

So- from my very limited knowledge I would say its most likely to be the Canon 17-55.....
Click to expand...


but in your OP you said that you have the 17-70 but would like slightly wider, that leaves you with the 10-20 (the lens I also want!)
 
Peter-T said:
but in your OP you said that you have the 17-70 but would like slightly wider, that leaves you with the 10-20 (the lens I also want!)
Click to expand...

True!

It would be rather handy for shooting the inside of cars where I have built the roll cages etc and of course even better scenery... This is why it is so annoying that compromises always suck :(:bang:
 
24-70mm + 12-24mm combo is nice and versatile. 17-50 + 11-16mm should do quite well too for less £££ if FF is not planned. 17mm as the widest setting is not great - not that wide and very distorted.
 
I have the Tamron 17-50, and wished I had bought the Canon 17-55. It's an ok lens, but the focus speed and hunting really get me down sometimes :( I hired the Canon for a wedding and it was fantastic, a little bigger and heavier(and pricier) but worth the extra in my opinion. If I could afford it, I'd have one.

p.s., you could hire one too and see what you reckon :)
 
My personal solution to the predicament you face was to get a 17-55 as an upgrade to my 17-85 and to add a 10-22 to satisfy my UWA needs. The overlap in focal length range might seem like a waste, but I don't see it as a problem. If you are shooting indoors or general walkabout then 17-55 is the lens you'll be wanting. If you're shooting landscapes or funky perspectives it'll be the 10-22. The overlap basically extends the capabilities of each lens without requiring a lens change every time you get to around that 20mm zone. Of course, if you consider the overlap pointless then there is always the Tokina 11-16, with the possible advantage of constant f/2.8, which could be great for indoor shooting and action, but pretty pointless for landscapes, and with less range overall, really not as useful for such things. Of course, 10-22 + 24-70 also avoids the overlap.

Personally I would not get a lens like the 15-85. It may well have great IQ, but a slow zoom lens with variable max aperture would not suit me at all. If I have a choice it would be constant f/2.8 all the way. Lenses far outlast bodies (unless you change formats). Invest wisely in glass and it will serve you for a long time to come.

I also have a 24-70, which I was compelled to buy when I added a 1D3 to my camera collection. It's a nice lens for sure, but on an APS-C body and with no IS I think it is perhaps not the optimum choice. The 17-55 on APS-C is sweet. As others have said, it has to be your choice. What suits one person may not suit another.

Here's the 24-70 on a 5D2 vs the 17-55 on a 50D....

20100226_110551_0771_LR.jpg


20100226_110813_0772_LR.jpg
 
I'd agree with Tim. The 24-70 is a really nice lens but given your preference for wide angle and a crop body, it probably won't be wide enough for you. If you are thinking that you might go FF in the future, it might still be worth considering.

I understand that the 17-55 is a very well thought of lens with really sharp images. It's certainly an upgrade I would consider for my crop body.
 
Thanks Tim, nice answer and I agree with you and scarecrow! If I was going FF the 24-70 would undoubtedly be my want, but maybe it is not wide enough to be a proper walk around.

Is it fair to say the 17-55 is the best upgrade available designed specifically for a crop sensor as a walk around?

I should have put the 17-55 AND a UWA in the poll, from all the reviews I have read the Tokina 11-16 seems to storm ahead of both the canon and sigma 10-20/22
 
topcatproduction said:
Is it fair to say the 17-55 is the best upgrade available designed specifically for a crop sensor as a walk around?
Click to expand...

I don't think you can say that there is a "best", because everyone has their own needs that skew what "best" is. It's a bit like asking "What is the best pair of cross trainers?" or "What is the best medium sized hatchback?"

I put high value on f/2.8. I also like having IS and USM, and a standard 77mm filter size. Others will put much greater value on a broader zoom range. So, yes, the 17-55 is the "best" for me. It is a favoured lens amongst wedding photographers using APS-C bodies, so that must certainly point to the quality and performance, but it makes a poor 85mm lens and is terrible at 15mm. It is also pretty expensive and build quality is perhaps not what one would like for such a pricey lens, but the IQ is top notch. It really is a personal choice.
 
Personally, these ultrawide angles lenses, probably the pick of them are the 11-16 or 12-24 tonk's are more quirky lenses than true landscape lenses unless you like the fisheye effect. The 10-22mm I've got rarely comes out of the bag because it use is quite limited.

The 24-105 or 24-70 lenses ain't suitable for a cropped sensor camera, you lose 1/2 the capability of the lens because it frame like a 38-168mm or 38-112mm lens. The 15-85mm EF-S is definitely better than the 17-85mm, but not in the league of the 17-40mm, 17-55mm or tamron 17-50.

As Hoppy said, the most suitable lens to go for on a cropped sensor camera is the 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S or the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (IS) or (non IS) as an alternative depending on your budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top