Which 2.8 to buy

Andy77

Andy77

Messages
2,543
Name
andy
Edit My Images
No
Hi peeps, well im looking into buying a nice sharp zoom lens, must be an constant 2.8,usage will be portraits, landscapes, general walkabout ect, im close to buying a sigma 24-70 dg ex macro from a fellow member on here, but felt ive rushed into it a little, i just need your thoughts on the different lens availible at this apeture of 2.8 my max budget around £200 so what would you recommend and why???

Thanks Andy:thumbs:
 
AFAIK, the Tamaron is a little better and sharper than the siggy..
 
One lens I would recommend is the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC. A nice sharp lens which would cover all your requirements and can be found around the £200 mark.

I have one and swear by it.
 
stupar said:
One lens I would recommend is the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC. A nice sharp lens which would cover all your requirements and can be found around the £200 mark.

I have one and swear by it.
Click to expand...

Will this be good for portraits???

Andy
 
Andy,for my fuji S5 pro i bought first the 18-50 2.8 macro sigma and then the 24-70 your considering.i found the 18-50 less useful than the 24-70,though both will be fine for Portrait use,i find the 24-70 suits my needs more.you should pick up either VGC within your budget,you could perhaps try both on your camera at a local camera shop
 
neil_g said:
im always keen to recommend the sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro. excellent sharp lens with great colour reproduction.
Click to expand...

I chose one of these over the Tamron, mainly because I felt the Tamron felt a little cheaply made. I know that not all will consider this important but it bother me. I'll very pleased with the Sigma so far.
 
Skyline On Fire said:
What was wrong with the canon 17-55 you had?
Click to expand...

Nothing was wrong with it luke, it was fantastic, i sold due to other purchases.

Thanks for all the reply guys, so really its a battle between the sigma 18-50 & the tamron 17-50????

Or do i just go for the siggy 24-70 2.8:bang:

Andy
 
Sorry, I don't know my Canons. The 40d is a crop camera right? I would have thought that the wider 17/18 length would be more useful than a little extra at the long end. You can always crop stuff out of a pic in PP but you can't add stuff in....
 
WHy not consider the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 OS lens? Ok its not constant 2.8 but you have it from 17mm-22mm (ish) and then 3.5 nearly all the way to 60mm and F4 for the remaining 60-70mm gap.
Nice lens, very sharp Ive found from 17-60mm range, suffers a little at the long eng - and of course you get OS worth 3-4stops aswell!
 
Tamron all the way, you had the best 2.8 walkabout zoom for Canon IMO, but the IQ of the Tamron isnt to far behind, build and focus speed are though.
 
WHy not consider the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 OS lens? Ok its not constant 2.8 but you have it from 17mm-22mm (ish) and then 3.5 nearly all the way to 60mm and F4 for the remaining 60-70mm gap.
Nice lens, very sharp Ive found from 17-60mm range, suffers a little at the long eng - and of course you get OS worth 3-4stops aswell!
Click to expand...

Seconded! used the old version on my 20d (for about 3 years I think) and currently use the newer OS version on my D90 and love it! I really rate this lens for a cheap mid range walkabout.
 
neil_g said:
im always keen to recommend the sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro. excellent sharp lens with great colour reproduction.
Click to expand...

gad-westy said:
I chose one of these over the Tamron, mainly because I felt the Tamron felt a little cheaply made. I know that not all will consider this important but it bother me. I'll very pleased with the Sigma so far.
Click to expand...

I have this lens too.

I love it.
It lives on my camera :)
 
IMHO, you can't get better than the Canon 17-55 f2.8 for what you want it for. I know it's more money, but it's got good resale value, the optics are superb, and the build quality is better than the similar Sigma or Tamron products.

Steve
 
If you are looking between siga and tamron. Definetly go for tamron. I got both in past, tamron (non VC) was a little bit slower, but more sharp and more acurate, and colors were a little bit warmer. Sigma have a little bit better speed but it's harder to find good copy without any front/back focus.
 
I've recently acquired a Sigma 24-60mm F/2.8 for £175 + delivery so when it arrives I'll let you know how that is - could be an option. It doesn't have HSM though so I don't know if lightning fast AF is essential to you, if not and the IQ is good a similar lens could be quite the bargain!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top