new lens help

T

talisker

Messages
108
Edit My Images
No
i've got a canon 400d with the standard kit lens ,which i'm hoping to replace and get something a little better ,i've also got a sigma 70-300 lens which i bought in haste and have found that i don't use it so i'm probably going sell it.
i don't want to get into buying loads of lens's, i'm looking at possibly having only the one lens for the camera and i know people are probably gonna say you can't really do everything with the one lens but i have other hobbies and don't really want to spend a lot of money.
i'm only really interested in holiday snaps and landscapes, a friend of mine recommended a "Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Asp" just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this lens or can recommend any others, my budget would be up to £350 max :)
 
As Joe says, the Tamron 17-50 is a good lens, but its limitation as an *only* lens is that it's not very long. You might find that quite limiting.

I have a Sigma 18-200 as my "walkaround" lens. It gets the job done most of the time. Obviously with a large zoom range like that, the image quality isn't of the highest order (though on the whole it"s pretty decent, only exhibiting noticeable softness around 170-200mm), but I'm willing to trade that for the convenience. There's also a newer and better stabilised version (Sigma call it OS) which will come within your budget.
 
don't go more than 17-18 at the bottom end.
I've been through this too.
I had a 28-105....lovely lens for it's price but it wasn't wide enough
I've tried two cheaper sigma's....not a fan.
then the canon 17-85 IS, (££350 ish)great fun but it warps at 17mm quite a lot.
I'm trying out the tamron 2.8 17-50 at the moment and quite like it. (just paid £240 UK supplier) f2.8 is so handy.
Do you have the 18-55mm or the 18-55 IS...?? as the newer 'kit lens' is supposed to be a cracking buy
If that was about £160, then another £60 quid will get you the nifty fifty...and a cheap zoom lens too
 
StewartR makes a very good point I know a coupe of people who use the OS version of the Sigma as a walk about and swear by it. I tried one and really couldn't live with the varying image quality through the range so I opted for a sigma 17-70 which gives very could images but obviously sacrifices alot of range. It wasn't a problem for me as I mainly shoot landscapes and scenary but mybe an issue for you.
 
the wide end is the most important to me as most of the shots i take with the kit lens are at 18mm.
i can't make my mind up between the sigma 17-70mm and the tamron 17-50mm both seem to get really good reviews and seem a good upgrade from the kit lens .
is either of the lens's better at the wide end if not i'll get the sigma 17-70mm and at least i'll have a bit extra reach if i need it :)
 
If your requirement is for holiday snaps and landscapes, I'd probably agree with Stewart in this case. Yes the 18-200's have their optical limitations, but are a pretty darn good, compact walkaround package for the money. Reviews I've seen suggest that the optical quality of the newer Sigma 18-200 is better than the old (non-OS) one.
 
inaneredstripe i think you mean,

17-85mm is much better than 18-55,

not

18-85 is better than 17-55.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top