zoom lens decision

<p>Hi<br>

I am looking at upgrading my lower end kit lens on my Pentax K10. I am looking at Tamron 17-50 f 2.8, Sigma EX 18-50 f 2.8 or Pentax DA F2.8. I have a sigma 10-20 EX, 50mm F1.8 plus 2 kit lens. Or should I look at the Sigma EX24-70/2.8 (or other brands) for the longer range and not worry about the gap between 20 & 24 mm? I have a few older manual lens which cover the macro issues for me. Would the middle range 50mm in 24-70 produce better images than 50mm on the 17-50?<br>

I have done a few resume/low charge wedding shoots as I find my 'feet'. I have just completed year 1 of a visual imaging degree (photography & design) and have had a bit of exposure to studio and portraiture work, although my preferance is still natural light and outdoors. I envisage a range of work but weddings probably as my 'breads & butter'.<br>

Thanks in advance for any advise. Max</p>

<p>There’s a gap between 20mm and 24mm? Since when…?</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Ben, I believe Max is talking about the gap in reference to his having a 10-20mm and then buying a 24-70mm--hence the gap between 20 and 24mm. Max--whether this matters to you depends somewhat on your methods and preferences re focal lengths used for weddings. If it were me, I would want an overlap there. While I have no problem changing lenses under pressure, it is nice not to have to do so, and the 17-50mm range on a cropped sensor body is very nice.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron, and it is a great lens. I've heard the Sigma is also very good, so this is up to you. As for the focal length range, I would opt to get the 17-50mm range over the 24-70mm. I doubt the 50mm focal length is better or worse on the Tamron as opposed to the Sigma 24-70mm. Actually your 50mm prime would probably produce just as good, if not better, a result.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am looking at upgrading my lower end kit lens on my Pentax K10. I am looking at Tamron 17-50 f 2.8, Sigma EX 18-50 f 2.8 or Pentax DA F2.8. I have a sigma 10-20 EX, 50mm F1.8 plus 2 kit lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My first thought: Sell the kit lenses.</p>

<p>Not sure which Pentax lens you're talking about here; is it the DA* 16-50? The Tamron and Sigma are both supposed to be very good lenses. I have the Sigma DC 18-50 f/2.8 EX Macro. It's not a bad lens and I've used it for a couple of weddings but I'll probably sell it. </p>

<p>I would suggest that you consider the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, as well. I generally shoot primes now, most of the time, but if I had to shoot a wedding with just 1 zoom lens, I'd rather use the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 than anything in the 17-50 range. In other words, I'd rather give up a little at the wide-angle end in return for a little longer reach. But that's a personal decision. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Or should I look at the Sigma EX24-70/2.8 (or other brands) for the longer range and not worry about the gap between 20 & 24 mm? I have a few older manual lens which cover the macro issues for me. Would the middle range 50mm in 24-70 produce better images than 50mm on the 17-50?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would not worry about the gap between 20 and 24! As I said, I shoot almost entirely with primes and I find that I can live with the gaps quite nicely. I cannot image a situation in which you would simply NOT be able to take a photograph because you didn't have 22mm available to you! Besides, unless you're carrying around a second camera with the Sigma 10-20 on it, you're probably going to have to change lenses anyway.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>In general, the DA 16-50 is excellent. I have two of the Tokinas for my Nikon kit.</p>

<p>However, I recently added a Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. Its as good for focus accuracy and speed, and better for sharpness. Color and contrast are similar overall to the Pentax/Tokina.</p>

<p>If you already have the 10-20, and plan to use two bodies, then a 24-70 would be better IMO. That Tamron 28-75 is very highly regarded too, and for good reason.</p>

<p>I don't use the UWA that much in a recti lens. So I prefer the range of the 17-50 coupled with either an 85 or my Toki 50-135/2.8.</p>

<p>If you use the UWA a lot, and want the "reach", then I would skip that mid range all together and get the 50-135/2.8. Great bit of glass.</p>

<p>Thanks for the ideas. Max</p>

<p>My comments:</p>

<p><strong><em>“Or should I look at the Sigma EX24-70/2.8 (or other brands) for the longer range and not worry about the gap between 20 & 24 mm?” </em></strong></p>

<p>An ugly FoV to be swapping lenses at a Wedding, for the way most Professionals shoot.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>“Would the middle range 50mm in 24-70 produce better images than 50mm on the 17-50?”</em></strong></p>

<p>As a general theoretical comment, comparing zooms “of equal quality”: Yes.</p>

<p>Think of it this way a zoom has a “sweet spot” like all lenses apropos aperture – the same applies apropos Focal Length – the middle is the best.</p>

<p>Whether you will see a difference is open for debate and pixel peeping.</p>

<p>But being a practical person, I would answer: “But you’ve got a 50mm Prime - so why are you asking the question?”</p>

<p>***<br>

<br /><strong><em>“I envisage a range of work but weddings probably as my 'breads & butter'.”</em></strong></p>

<p>Then your question about the gap between 20 and 24 becomes somewhat irrelevant, because you NEED a second body. Therefore you could have the other zoom always mounted and ready for use.</p>

<p>But that stated – for a “1.5 crop body” (as your Pentax is) a 17 to 50mm ish F/2.8 zoom would be my suggestion, as a main working zoom, if zooms are your thing.<br>

17 to 50 ish on an APS-C body will usually reap 80% of the gig – its simple maths . . . the 80 / 20 Law of Economics.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>PS: With due respect to you, William P – I would not rush in and sell the kit lenses – (I don’t know what the “kit lenses” are) but I am sure one covers the basic 17mm to 50mm or thereabouts . . . for what Max might get in $ for it you loose in system redundancy – OK it might be “just OK” – but for Weddings you must always have Plan B and Plan C . . . so if you get either the Tamron 17 to 50 or the Sigma 24 to 70 as your main working zoom and drop it – what is Plan B?</p>

<p>What do you think?</p>

<p>Nadine, you often recommend the Tamron 17-50 2.8, especially when on a tight budget. In your personal experience do you think the VC version is necessary with this lens? I assume you shoot with the non-VC lens - how does it perform/focus in a dimly lit church sans flash? And lastly, if you've used it, how do you feel it compares to the Canon 17-55 2.8? I know the Tamron is much cheaper than the Canon but I would pay more if the low light performance was substantially stronger. I know these lenses work on the crop bodies only but that is okay as I will have the 40D for some time, even if just as a backup like you. Thanks.</p>

<p><strong><em>"I know these lenses work on the crop bodies only "</em></strong><br>

<br>

Note that the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8IS USM cannot<strong>**</strong> <em>MOUNT</em> on a "full frame" or APS-H Canon EOS Camera, because it is an EF-S bayonet MOUNT.<br>

<br>

The Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [iF] however <em><strong>can mount</strong></em> on, for example, a 5D or an APS-H body, because, it is an EF mount. However the image will have a vignette as the <em>Image Circle</em> of the lens <em>covers only the APS-C size sensor</em>. <br>

<br>

Also, the Photographer <em>might</em> need to be aware of mirror clearance at some Focal Lengths, too – <em>I do not know that detail.</em> <br>

<br>

I mention this for two reasons - the first is for clarity, and to address some confusion about these "crop sensor" or "digital only" lenses, as they have been tagged and are now spoken of.<br>

<br>

The second is, addressing this statement, there is a practical application: (although it may be minor and never used). In a dual format system, the Tamron lens supplies more <em><strong>System Redundancy</strong></em>, than the EF-S lens. <br>

<br>

If really stretched, with sudden faults or damage, a skilled operator could limp on with a 5D the Tamron lens if they were in a tight pinch. <br>

<br>

WW <br>

<br>

Footnote, for the others with attention to minor details:<br>

** Surgery can be applied to an EF-S lens mount, to allow coupling with non EF-S mount EOS Cameras. <br>

A small screwdriver and a penknife will suffice as tools. But the mirror diving into the rear of the lens will be a problem at some Focal Lengths. (The "S" in "EF-S" means "Short Back Focus"). <br>

This is not a refit one would want to attempt in the field, (or not even in Church), IMO.<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Hi Mitch--you might want to look at what David Wegwart says about the VC version. Since I already have the non VC version, I am not in a rush to go out and upgrade, but if I were buying new, I'd get the VC version. I don't think VC is all that big a deal in many cases, because it does not stop subject motion, but of course, if I had it, I would use it.</p>

<p>I have never had problems with the autofocus on the Tamron lenses. Many people say the autofocus is slow compared to L lenses, etc., but I have not found that to be the case--I have one L lens, the 16-35mm f2.8. I also have not found that the lens hunts in low light either. However, I try to use the focus assist from the flash when I can. Of course, during a ceremony, that isn't great, and I turn the flash off, but even so, I haven't found it to be a big problem--at least, no more than a Canon lens.</p>

<p>I have not used the 17-55mm lens so I can't really say. What I have heard about the 17-55mm is that the IS is a bit quirky and can go down without warning. As for image quality, I am sure the Tamron is very close. The reasons I chose the Tamron 17-50mm and 28-75mm over the Canon equivalents are not necessarily only image quality. I think the image quality of the Tamrons is, again, very close to the Canon equivalents, but of course, not the same. I chose the 17-50mm because I was thinking of doing receptions with the cropped sensor body and didn't want to spend the big money on a lens just for that. It turns out I didn't do that, but I kept the lens anyway for the rare occasions where I use the 40D as a main camera.</p>

<p>I bought the 28-75mm very deliberately because it had 5mm more on the long end. I could have, and would have bought the 24-70mm if it was just a bit longer. Both of these lenses are also smaller, and lighter than their equivalents--something that is important to me.</p>

<p>I would say that if you have the money, get the Canon lens. If you have other reasons besides image quality, where the Tamron lens shines, get the Tamron.</p>

<p>Thank you for the great feedback Nadine and WW, much appreciated.</p>