Which walk about lens? (Canon crop sensor)

lolage

lolage

Messages
911
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, sorry another one of these threads!

After deciding to make the move from Nikon to Canon I'm finding it hard to choose a lens to replace my awesome Nikon 35mm 1.8G. It appears everything around the 30mm range prime wise with canon is a lot more expensive than my Nikon 35mm was.

Firstly I was going to just get a Canon 50mm 1.8 despite the focal length being too long, but after much thought decided against it and wanted the Canon 30mm f2, then the Sigma 30m 1.4, then the Canon 28mm 1.8 after basically just reading bad reviews of each of them. Don't know if I can justify to spend £300 on a lens which may be slightly better if not as good as my £120 nikon prime.

Basically running around in circles, it doesn't even have to be a prime - in the ideal world I'd grab the Canon 17-55 2.8 but cant justify spending £700 on a lens after buying the 600D, Tokina 11-16 and a 430ex II.

I've since been thinking if I'm willing to spend £300+ on a prime lens, why can't I just buy a 17/18-50 2.8 aftermarket lens instead? I would get the Tamron non-VC as I've heard its a lot sharper than the VC version but I need IS/VC really as I will be using my camera for 50/50 video/photo.

Can anyone please point me in the right direction? :wacky:

Cheers :bonk:
 
deadalus3000 said:
What about 17-85mm EFs, good lens, around about the 300 quid mark..
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion but would prefer something with a constant appeture and a little lower F stop as I need this lens to shoot some video interviews so would like the background blown out!
 
lolage said:
Thanks for the suggestion but would prefer something with a constant appeture and a little lower F stop as I need this lens to shoot some video interviews so would like the background blown out!
Click to expand...

In that case you've answered your own question, canon 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM (£620 from panamoz of hdewcameras)looks like the only option u have left after writing off the other lenses. Also it would fit in perfect with the Tokina 11-16 canon17-55. But if ur thinking of a prime I personally would leave the sigmas alone as I was saving up for a sigma 30 1.4 and when I tried it in the shop I was very diss appointed from its AF performance and IQ and sharpness the same thing happen with the sigma 50 1.4 and I tried the canon 50 1.4 and it ***** all over the sigmas in AF IQ and sharpness! The only thing that is good about the sigma is its built quality and nout else, but that's just my experience out 2 30mm and 3 50mm
 
lucky_13 said:
In that case you've answered your own question, canon 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM (£620 from panamoz of hdewcameras)looks like the only option u have left after writing off the other lenses. Also it would fit in perfect with the Tokina 11-16 canon17-55. But if ur thinking of a prime I personally would leave the sigmas alone as I was saving up for a sigma 30 1.4 and when I tried it in the shop I was very diss appointed from its AF performance and IQ and sharpness the same thing happen with the sigma 50 1.4 and I tried the canon 50 1.4 and it ***** all over the sigmas in AF IQ and sharpness! The only thing that is good about the sigma is its built quality and nout else, but that's just my experience out 2 30mm and 3 50mm
Click to expand...

Yeah good shout... I looked at the sigma version but thats £460-£500 so if I'm going to spend that I might as well just wait for the canon.

Instead of spending £300 on the Sigma 1.4 I think I'm going to buy the Tamron 17-50 non-VC version and just cope without IS/VC for time being until I can afford the Canon.
 
I had a Sigma 30mm f1.4 which I used with my Canon APS-C and I thought it was a great lens, compact-ish, fast to focus and sharp even at f1.4 too. The only negative thing I can say about it is that the focus ring felt a little gritty when manually focusing. I tried another and it was just the same so I assume it's a function of the focus mechanism rather than a fault as such. IMVHO it's a great lens and I only sold mine because I bought a full frame camera.

I also had the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non VC. I found it to be a nice lens and very sharp but I prefer primes myself and if choosing between the two I'd take the Sigma 30mm f1.4.

PS. I also have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and unlike Billy I'm very impressed. It's not razor sharp wide open but it's said to be sharper than the Canon in every review I've read.
 
Canon 17-55 f2.8 is your best bet, After that if you need the fast apeture the sigma 17-50 f2.8 is next best lens.

Personaly i like the Canon 15-85mm myself, Cracking lens always gets good reviews.
 
lucky_13 said:
But if ur thinking of a prime I personally would leave the sigmas alone as I was saving up for a sigma 30 1.4 and when I tried it in the shop I was very diss appointed from its AF performance and IQ and sharpness the same thing happen with the sigma 50 1.4 and I tried the canon 50 1.4 and it ***** all over the sigmas in AF IQ and sharpness! The only thing that is good about the sigma is its built quality and nout else, but that's just my experience out 2 30mm and 3 50mm
Click to expand...


Personally I am amazed by the above statement that the Canon 50 1.4 is sharper than the Sigma 30 1.4. I have owned both and as much as I think the Canon 50 1.4 is a great lens for the money the Sigma 30 1.4 is by far the better lens. I feel that it is both sharper at 1.4, faster to focus, and better build quality. Plus with the Sigma you get a lens hood and case.

The Canon 17-55 F2.8 is also a great lens however it is a different type class to a prime. Both the primes talked about above are 2 stops faster than the 17-55. Taking a photo with a lens at F1.4 @ ISO 400 would mean the shot would need to be at ISO 1600 at F2.8 - that is IQ make or break for a lot of bodies! Things like this aren't considered when people compare lenses in a lab.
 
17-55 IS is THE best walkabout lens for a Canon crop body.

DaveKing said:
The Canon 17-55 F2.8 is also a great lens however it is a different type class to a prime. Both the primes talked about above are 2 stops faster than the 17-55. Taking a photo with a lens at F1.4 @ ISO 400 would mean the shot would need to be at ISO 1600 at F2.8 - that is IQ make or break for a lot of bodies! Things like this aren't considered when people compare lenses in a lab.
Click to expand...
There are swings and roundabouts. F/1.4 can be great to have, but the extremely narrow DOF makes it unsuitable for many shots. Group photo's, landscapes etc are better suited to higher F numbers. Also, the 17-55 has IS so if you are shooting a stationary target you can get away with very low shooting speeds. In many circustances the 17-55 @ f/2.8 can use slower shutter speeds than either of the 30mm or 50mm primes at f/1.4. I have severa; very sharp hand-held shots at 1/4 sec. The 17-55 also does not suffer the soft edge, left-right oof, and fringing issues that I had with my copy of the Sigma 30mm (common problems). The Sigma lens generally has QA issues.
 
Last edited:
So annoying have to choose! I'm almost wanting the 30mm sigma again. Really hard to choose between these lenses.

Which option would you guys go for if you had the choice?

A
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC
Canon 50mm 1.8

B
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Sigma 30mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.8

Choices choices :shake::shake:
 
id prob go with a Canon 17-55 F2.8 as a walk aroudn lens and the 30mm 1.4 as my prime - only pain i find is a 17-55 is quite short as a walkaround lens
 
tomkbucks said:
id prob go with a Canon 17-55 F2.8 as a walk aroudn lens and the 30mm 1.4 as my prime - only pain i find is a 17-55 is quite short as a walkaround lens
Click to expand...

lolage said:
in the ideal world I'd grab the Canon 17-55 2.8 but cant justify spending £700 on a lens after buying the 600D, Tokina 11-16 and a 430ex II.
Click to expand...

Budget is £350 at the most. :thumbsdown:
 
woof woof said:
PS. I also have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and unlike Billy I'm very impressed. It's not razor sharp wide open but it's said to be sharper than the Canon in every review I've read.
Click to expand...

I'm glad ur happy with ur siggy but from my experience the sigma is sharper than the canon but only in the centre and not across the frame and the reason I tried 3 copies of the same lens is that I really really wanted to find one that could beat canon or at least be as good as in IQ AFand sharpness across the frame as I really do like the feel, built quality and the huge size of the sigma I haven't yet given up tho, I'm still searching for a copy that I'm happy with, :)
 
DaveKing said:
Personally I am amazed by the above statement that the Canon 50 1.4 is sharper than the Sigma 30 1.4. I have owned both and as much as I think the Canon 50 1.4 is a great lens for the money the Sigma 30 1.4 is by far the better lens. I feel that it is both sharper at 1.4, faster to focus, and better build quality. Plus with the Sigma you get a lens hood and case.

The Canon 17-55 F2.8 is also a great lens however it is a different type class to a prime. Both the primes talked about above are 2 stops faster than the 17-55. Taking a photo with a lens at F1.4 @ ISO 400 would mean the shot would need to be at ISO 1600 at F2.8 - that is IQ make or break for a lot of bodies! Things like this aren't considered when people compare lenses in a lab.
Click to expand...

Please don't be offended by my statement regarding these lenses as that is just my experience and a free hood and a case are hardly worth buying a lens for, not a deal maker or breaker for me at least.
 
Sigma 30mm is my preferred walkabout using 40D, can highly recommend it.
 
I've recently got a 35 f2, a 50 f1.4 and an 85 f1.8 and they are all very sharp and good performers. I was looking at the Sigma 30 f1.4 but I went for the Canon 50 because it's an EF mount and I want it for my 60D and 5D3, which kind of stuffed the Sigma for me anyway. Besides that, nearly all the reviews I read rated the Canon 50 f1.4 higher than the Sigma 30 f1.4 anyway.
 
modchild said:
nearly all the reviews I read rated the Canon 50 f1.4 higher than the Sigma 30 f1.4 anyway.
Click to expand...

I'd be amazed if any review pitted a 30mm lens against a 50mm lens..

.. but in any case.. I can recommend the 30mm from my own experience, rather than speak against it based on something I've read, I found any 50mm lens to be too tight for wysiwyg on an APS-C.. (y)
 
Not on your list, but the Tamron 17-50 VC is in my opinion underrated. The early issues with sharpness are now resolved to my understanding. Either way, I'm happy with mine.

Regards
Steve.
 
Alastair said:
I'd be amazed if any review pitted a 30mm lens against a 50mm lens..

.. but in any case.. I can recommend the 30mm from my own experience, rather than speak against it based on something I've read, I found any 50mm lens to be too tight for wysiwyg on an APS-C.. (y)
Click to expand...

Yeah not sure why people are rambling about 50mm, as you said a little too tight on crop sensor.

stevebuk said:
Not on your list, but the Tamron 17-50 VC is in my opinion underrated. The early issues with sharpness are now resolved to my understanding. Either way, I'm happy with mine.

Regards
Steve.
Click to expand...

Oh really? I would go for this lens but put off that I heard the sharpness was bad..? How has this now been resolved?
 
I'm not sure to be honest. I heard it was a quality control issue with some of the early lenses. I've had no issues, but tend to use my 10-22 most.

Here is an example I found on my Flickr taken with the Tamron VC at f11.


The Deep, Hull by Steve Babb, on Flickr

Regards,
Steve
 
The Canon 35mm F2 is superb. Little bit more expensive than the nikon but an excellent lens none the less..
 
efs 15-85 is a good walk about lens cheaper than the 17-55 f2.8
 
Last edited:
Think I'm going to comprimise for the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS. Have read good things about it, being almost as good if not beter than the Canon. Going to get it for roughly £400 so still a good £250 cheaper than the Canon.

Will be better than the kit lens anyway. :)
 
Have you bought the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 yet? If so, could you please share your experience with this lens? I'm considering to buy this lens as well.
 
jimiking said:
Have you bought the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 yet? If so, could you please share your experience with this lens? I'm considering to buy this lens as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have it. I think its a great alternative to buying the Canon version. Its apparently just as sharp as the Canon version! A big step up from kit lenses which I have been used to before hand anyway. :)

This is a good video review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as9YxgONIQI
 
Hi there, I'm a bit late to the discussion but had the same choice to make for my 550d. Also ummm'd and arr'd and could not justify the canon price. I went with the sigma DC 17-50 2.8 ex hsm and to date have been happy with it. I'm sure I'm not experienced enough to get the best out of it but have taken some good shots and the original kit lens has stayed in my the bag. Another plus points are that you get a case and a hood where you'd need to buy these seperately for the Canon 17-55 2.8.
Personal I would say is that this lens is BIG and I've needed a battery grip on all the time to make the camera seemed balanced. Also with the hood up the built in flash is useless as the lens gets in the way but fine with a flash on a hotshoe.
 
I'm in a similar, but slightly different predicament. I like to shoot the inside of buddhist pagodas here in Cambodia, often low light, and not always easy to get a tripod on the right position, so prefer something that can be hand held. Using a Canon 60D, the 50mm f1.8 I have is often just a little too long. Can't stretch to a Canon 24mm f1.4L (I wish!) so had been considering:

Canon 35mm f2 (cheaper, longer, slower), but was really tossing up between the:
Canon 28mm f1.8 (which nobody seems to have mentioned), and the
Sigma 30mm f1.4 (until I read some of these comments)

Thoughts on the latter 2? Or accept that all of them are compromises, buy the cheaper Canon, and keep more in the pot for other goodies in the future?! OK, that's not going to happen, it's probably the 28 or 30...
 
andyhad said:
I'm in a similar, but slightly different predicament. I like to shoot the inside of buddhist pagodas here in Cambodia, often low light, and not always easy to get a tripod on the right position, so prefer something that can be hand held. Using a Canon 60D, the 50mm f1.8 I have is often just a little too long. Can't stretch to a Canon 24mm f1.4L (I wish!) so had been considering:

Canon 35mm f2 (cheaper, longer, slower), but was really tossing up between the:
Canon 28mm f1.8 (which nobody seems to have mentioned), and the
Sigma 30mm f1.4 (until I read some of these comments)

Thoughts on the latter 2? Or accept that all of them are compromises, buy the cheaper Canon, and keep more in the pot for other goodies in the future?! OK, that's not going to happen, it's probably the 28 or 30...
Click to expand...

I researched both the last two lenses and wasn't happy spending the amount of money on them when I heard that both had pretty bad flaws. However out of the two I think I would have gone for the Sigma personally.
 
Cheers. Doesn't settle my mind, of course! Have seen mixed reviews, and feel a bit torn about buying something I will end up regretting. If only cash wasn't an issue!
 
andyhad said:
Cheers. Doesn't settle my mind, of course! Have seen mixed reviews, and feel a bit torn about buying something I will end up regretting. If only cash wasn't an issue!
Click to expand...

Well yeah, I wasn't happy spending money on either so spent a little more and got the Sigma 17-50 2.8. With the extra money I got the extra flexibility of a zoom lens and IS (which is very useful for when I'm doing video). Only loose out on the 1.4/1.8/2.0 but for me 2.8 is fine for my needs!
 
lolage said:
I researched both the last two lenses and wasn't happy spending the amount of money on them when I heard that both had pretty bad flaws. However out of the two I think I would have gone for the Sigma personally.
Click to expand...

Squeaky wheels make the most noise.. there are many happy Sigma owners quietly going about the business of using their lenses.. the 30mm f/1.4 is a cracking lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top