Budget Wide-Angle Lens

S

Skei

Messages
4
Name
Quentin
Edit My Images
No
Hello everyone !

I'm just upgrading my 350D to a 60D, and am currently equipped with the kit 350D lens ( Canon 18-55mm non-IS ), a great Canon 55-250mm IS and a mostly broken Sigma 70-300mm ( think the autofocus motor is broken, keeping it for macro... ).

Given the insane change in sharpness I saw between the old 18-55mm and just about anything else ( including the new 18-55mm IS ), I'm looking to upgrade this lens as well. As such, I can either go for a kit lens :
- 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
- 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
- 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

or, as suggested by some, a prime lens ( which are more expensive ).

I'm currently looking for any advice, especially about these three lenses but also about any that could replace them on a budget of a maximum of 400 - 500 GBP outside of the camera only.

In addition, your thoughts on the following bundle would be great :
60D + 17-85mm + Battery Grip, £1200.

Thanks very much !
Quentin
 
Another couple are
Tamron 17-50 Non IS £265 from Amazon
Sigma 17-50 if you search maybe for £500 (currently £550 new)

Tamron 17-50 is a cracking lens for the money often under £200 used on here.
 
Thanks, Euan, that lens does look good. I've looked at the VC version ( IS ) also, and have seen mostly very good reviews, except for one or two reports of the non-VC version being sharper. One review actually said the VC made the image blurrier if you didn't allow a moment between focusing and taking the photo. Which of the two would you recommend ? I suppose it's already a fast lens, and the 60D has excellent high-ISO results...
 
All IS systems need a tiny amount of time to adjust and yes you will get worse pictures if you don't allow the stabilisation system to settle. I'd go for the Non-VC.
 
Is that because of the fact it's a fast lens, and the VC doesn't justify the extra cost, vrapan ?
 
No it is just cause I think the non-VC to be a better lens really. I mean do go for the VC by all means if you think you need it - I moved to Pentax and one reason was to get image stabilisation on whatever kind of lens I chose to stick in front of it - but play first with it in store. I think they have changed the optical design on the VC but don't take my word for it.
 
Skei said:
Is that because of the fact it's a fast lens, and the VC doesn't justify the extra cost, vrapan ?
Click to expand...

No the VC is actually very cheap on the Tamron, generally Canon charge a hell of alot more than that for it on fixed appature lenses. The reason the non VC version is often recommended is that its a bit sharper, Tamron basically cut corners to get the VC in cheap at the expense of image quality.

Its certainly worth having a lens with both a large constant appature and stabilsation as they both accomplise different ends. The large appature will allow you to keep a high shutter speed in low light to capture moving subjects while the IS will allow you to use a small appature for maxmimum depth of field in low light.
 
Ive got the non-vc one at the moment and its great, AF is ok speed wise not as good as the Canon 17-55. Id like to try the VC version as the VC can come in handy. But if i was to try id definately go and try in a shop.
 
Hi

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I'm also looking at the Tamron 17-50, but wondered if it was full frame compatible, should I upgrade to a 5dmkII anytime soonish?!

Thanks!

Ben

EDIT - Scrap that - just looked at the Tamron site. It's not!
 
Last edited:
agree with many other comments the tamron 18 50 is a very good option
 
Thanks for all your comments. I'm veering towards the non-VC Tamron, though will look around for the Canon also.

zerodeluxe, the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II, whether VC or non-VC, has the Di II spec, which means it's only compatible with 1.6x crop sensors.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top