Short zoom for low light

jamie_bkc

jamie_bkc

Messages
20
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, i've just spent a good 2-3 hours of valuable packing-for-uni time searching the forums and googling and i'm still completely confused so I thought i'd put the question to you guys;

I've had my 450d for over a year now, I bought two extra lenses ontop of the kit lens over that time, a Sigma 70-300 APO DG for motorsport and a canon 50mm 1.8; this has been my most used of the three, my main interest is mountainbiking so the low fstop has been fantastic for shooting in the woods where light can be scarce. I still use the kit lens for a walkabout and travelling but to be honest if I could find the battery charger for my old point and shoot i'd probably take that instead for the same purpose. The main problem I have at the moment and the reason i'm looking at a new lens is that the 50 can be quite restricting, a lot of the time I wish it were shorter, especially when riding in local woods where the trees are dense and the trails are narrow, and sometimes I wish it were a little longer when I've been to places like fort william. I'd also like to have a better lens to replace the kit lens for a walkabout.

Money wise i'm on quite a tight budget, would like to keep it under £200 new or used, which from what i've found so far means the lowest I can probably afford is something f2.8, ideally a zoom although I have looked at shorter primes. I've listed below some that i've seen, any comments on them or other suggestions are greatly welcomed keeping in mind that focus speed needs to be reasonable for keeping up with bikes.

Canon EF 28mm f2.8 or 35mm f2 - would give me the width i need in woods but not very versatile and keeps me lumbered with the kit lens and i don't really want lots of lenses.

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - I like the idea of being able to get f2.8 thoughout and would perfectly replace the kit lens but i'm v tempted to get something with a slightly longer range to fill the gap.

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro - this is more like the range I was looking at but doesn't hold f2.8 throughout, and I don't know how long it holds onto it till, it it were upto 50ish that'd be fine as it would be no different from the tamron.

Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG only downside I see with this is losing the wide end which i've used quite a lot on holiday.

Of course all of this is subject to the quality of the kit, which I know nothing of. Sorry for the long post,

Jamie.
 
The Siggy 28-70 or the Tamron are probably your best bets. Tokina do a 16-50mm f/2.8 but it's about £550. Very good good mind you.

Of the two I'd go for the Tamron, purely because I got one this year and have to say that aside from the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, there's little to touch it, especially at the price. I got mine off fleabay for £160 - it was used but minty – and really am loathe to take it off my body; it's versatile, ultra-sharp and has that fast constant aperture. It is limited by a shortish zoom range but TBH, I don't really want for longer on most occasions and if I do, I just put on my 80-200mm. It's sharp through the zoom, light and compact (67mm front element so not the most expensive on filters either) and is pretty solidly built. The only minor downside is the AF not being as nippy or as silent as the Nikon version but it's a third of the price and I can live with that - it's not so bad that you'll regret getting one.

The new VC version has just come out so for some extra pennies that might be of help, but that also might help see a few more of the non-VC versions floating around on the used market. Mind you, it's a popular lens that does everything for little money so is sought after. Go used and you'll get one for under your budget, leaving enough for a decent filter :)
 
"Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro - this is more like the range I was looking at but doesn't hold f2.8 throughout, and I don't know how long it holds onto it till, it it were upto 50ish that'd be fine as it would be no different from the tamron."

I tried a Sigma 17-70mm in a shop once, you only have to touch the zoom ring and think about moving it and you lose f2.8. I don't know what length you lose f2.8 at but if the merest movement of the zoom ring loses it for you must be about 20mm or so, nowhere near 50mm anyway.

I went for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and it's a great lens apart from the distortion at the wide end which is bad but nowhere near as bad as that of the Canon EF-S 17-85mm that it replaced.
 
Thanks for the replies guys, so atm i'm darting between the 17-50 and the 28-70. Are there any other suggestions? Has anyone had an oppertunity to use both and compare?

Jamie.
 
I did use both and they are both very nice lenses for the price range.

I would choose based on 2 things:
1. Do you need the 17-27 range?
2. Can you get a sharp copy (or one you can test and return if problematic) of the 28-70 as many have back-focusing problems?
 
1. Hard to say if I need it, i've certainly used it a lot
2. I'm gonna be buying used so I doubt it

What's a back focusing problem entail?
 
Hah, just as I was getting it sussed a spanner in the works! Looking through what i've taken i've wanted width much more often than length when using the 50mm. So i could probably cross the 28-70 off the list, if i'm at the bottom of a bowl at a skatepark it's not gonna be too much use. Which i thought left me with the 17-50 tamron but that sigma looks like a pretty good comprimise.
 
Just to throw another question into the mix, does anyone know which is more liekly to hunt for focus the tamron 17-50 or the sigma 18-50?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top