I now have some cash to spend...

mrbez

mrbez

Messages
1,034
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys,

As you all know I have been asking some questions about lenses and what not for my Canon 40D.

Well, originally my budget was £300, so I was looking at the Tamron 17-50 2.8.

However, I have managed to offload some of my belongings and I now have around £550 to play with.

I have narrowed my options down to the following:

Canon 17-55 2.8
Canon 24 - 105 F4L

Tamron 17-50 2.8 & Sigma 10-20

Obviously, the latter option sounds good to me, as I can get two lenses. I hired a Canon 10-22 in Paris and loved having the wide angle.

Then again, I also hired the 17-55 2.8 and loved this.

I have been asked to assist on a wedding next June (I know it is ages away) so I would also like to bare in mind my choice for that, as I assume that I will still have my purchase for this event.

Shooting wise, I like to shoot architecture and street stuff, but I also enjoy wildlife. I know I will need to invest in another lens for the wildlife though.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Craig.
 
Option 1 and 2 give you IS, which is nice but I'd still go for the Tamron and Sigy combo.

You might miss the odd shot from not being able to go as slow on the shutter but the range will most likely gain you more opportunities than you'll lose.

Just a 2p's worth of course, it's your hard earned.
 
It is the old dilemma, i would say go for the 24-105 which will give you a great range, great optics and IS and you will be delighted with the results and be ideal for your future wedding and when you can afford it buy a wide lens later something like a tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 sells for around £140 ish and is excellent.
 
£550 will get you a 2nd hand 17-55 f/2.8.

I've had mine a week now (bought on this forum) and it's a fabulous lens, going to use it for a wedding in 3 weeks

:help:
 
That is what I am thinking, the Canon 17-55 2.8

But then I think is it really £300 better than the Tamron 17-50 2.8?

Which would allow me to get the Sigma 10-20, or maybe save a little more and get a 70-200.
 
is it really £300 better than the Tamron 17-50 2.8?
Click to expand...

In sharpness, colour rendition or focusing speed/accuracy, I very much doubt it. The big difference in the two for me is the IS. Only you can decide if that's worth it to you.
 
Removed Online Shop so OP can have a chance at the lens
 
Last edited:
MrCraigBerry said:
That is what I am thinking, the Canon 17-55 2.8

But then I think is it really £300 better than the Tamron 17-50 2.8?

....
Click to expand...

I can answer that question for you having had both when I owned my 40D.

IMO, Yes!

I bought the 17-50 first and while it was a good lens for the money the follow became an issue.

1. It was just that little bit too short (there's 8mm difference between the two).
2. No full-time manual (FTM) focus, (ie to tweak the focus manually you had to switch it to MF). Probably wouldn't be an issue is it wasn't for the next point.
3. In low light, precisely when you wanted the f/2.8, the focus could hunt quite a bit, FTM would have been useful here.
4. The focus was noisy, air-tool noisy. Quite distracting to be honest.

In the end I traded it and a 17-85 against a used 17-55 and never regretted it once.
 
It sounds like you're trying to do everything, all at once.

Personally I'd stick the money away somewhere for a rainy day. life doesn't revolve around buying more photography equipment.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
See my other post in reference to the focus speed/accuracy point.
Click to expand...


I just did Chris and I'm quite surprised to hear you say that. I've not tried the Tamron but I was very impressed with the Sigma version. Most folks that have tried the two back to back say the tamy is better but if it behaves as you say, I would be putting my cash in the sigy out of those two.

I don't doubt the canon is the better lens but the question of is it £300 better to any one individual is so hard to quantify.
 
Well I guess I will be finding out tomorrow.

Euan has made me aware of a used 17-55 with a 12 month warranty for £495.

I have bought this, as the copies that I was looking at on eBay were fetching upwards of £620.
 
dazzajl said:
I don't doubt the canon is the better lens but the question of is it £300 better to any one individual is so hard to quantify.
Click to expand...

Most optics aren't - personally I don't think the 50/1.4 is as better than the 1.8 as the price would indicate... and I seriously doubt Canon's multi thousand ££££ primes are "that much" better than the lower end lenses, but the fact is people pay for it because if they want f/2 on a 200mm lens, they have no choice.
 
trencheel303 said:
Personally I'd stick the money away somewhere for a rainy day. life doesn't revolve around buying more photography equipment.
Click to expand...

But life is about enjoying, and if photography and equipment makes me enjoy the moment, then surely that is good enough for me.
 
dazzajl said:
In sharpness, colour rendition or focusing speed/accuracy, I very much doubt it. The big difference in the two for me is the IS. Only you can decide if that's worth it to you.
Click to expand...

Definately focussing speed, i dont think the Tamron has ever been known as quick in that dept. I personally think the Canon is way better than the Tamron and ive owned both as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top