Unsure to upgrade 17-55 or not

Woblee

Woblee

Messages
1,306
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
Helppppppppppppp, I'm really stuck. I can't decide wether to upgrade my 'kit' Canon 17-55 f4.5-5.6 IS to one of the following (budget of £350-400) or carry on saving for a Canon 70-200


Tamrom 17-50 f2.8 XR Di II VC

Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.0 MACRO OS HSM

USED Canon 17-40 f4 L



Would the Tamron and Siggy IQ be able to compete with the Canon offering? But I'm drawn to the constant f2.8 of the Tamron which would especially help in low light on my poor 400D.

Or should I carry on with my current lens and worry about changing my 75-300 to a 70-200 ???

:shrug::shrug:
 
depends on what you want to use it for i'd guess... the 70-200 is an awesome beast, but is a completely different range to the other lenses you've listed.

i don't have any experience of the sigma or tamron you mention, but the 17-40 (although f4) is sharper than the much more expensive 16-35 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 (which i own) is awesome lens.

if you need a lens in the 70-200 range, then the canon ef 70-200 2.8 (either with IS or not) is probably as good as it gets. i love mine and if you can handle the expense would certainly recommend it. optically, it's a million miles from the kit lens.

you might find some of images and this discussion helpful:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=275325
 
Last edited:
I use my 17-55 most of the time and have 75-300 which gets used occasionally. That's why I thought of upgrading the 17-55 first.

Are the upgrades I mentioned a decent 'step up' or should I carry on saving and look at swapping the 75-300 for a 70-200 F4 L
 
looking at the crops from the sigma 17-70 on the digital picture, it looks to be pretty awful at the long end wide open, unusable possibly:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

this review seems agree with this, although it does mention that it's very, very sharp in the middle of the range. if that is all you're going to use, then it might be ok.

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=223

the tamron seems to get good write ups:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-xr-di-ii-lens-review.aspx

http://www.lenstip.com/18.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_17-50_mm_f_2.8_XR_Di_II_LD_Aspherical_(IF).html

personally though i'd go for a used 17-40 any day of the week and save for the 70-200 at a later date if you find you need it.
 
Last edited:
cuthbert said:
looking at the crops from the sigma 17-70 on the digital picture, it looks to be pretty awful at the long end wide open, unusable possibly:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

this review seems agree with this, although it does mention that it's very, very sharp in the middle of the range. if that is all you're going to use, then it might be ok.

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=223

the tamron seems to get good write ups:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-xr-di-ii-lens-review.aspx

http://www.lenstip.com/18.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_17-50_mm_f_2.8_XR_Di_II_LD_Aspherical_(IF).html

personally though i'd go for a used 17-40 any day of the week and save for the 70-200 at a later date if you find you need it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Mark, just the sort of info I was looking for. The review does seem to favour the non-VC Tamron over the VC one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top