choosing the best lens

 

<p>I use a 350D, professionally my clients and I am happy with the results.<br /> Now its time to change the lens and I have a few options below.<br>

I have read in dpreview.com that a Canon 17-40 mm is no good than a 18-55 on a 350D(small chip censors) and I do not have a budget for a <strong>Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM</strong> <br /><br /> <br /> <strong>Please suggest me from any of these lenses and the reason why?<br /></strong></p>

<ol>

<li>

<h1><strong>Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM</strong></h1>

</li>

<li><strong>Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM</strong></li>

<li>

<h1><strong>Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM</strong></h1>

</li>

<li>

<h1><strong>Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF)</strong></h1>

</li>

<li title="Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD

Aspherical (IF)" data-dpr-code="tamron_17-50_2p8_di-ii_vc" data-product-url="http://www.dpreview.com/products/tamron/lenses/tamron_17-50_2p8_di-ii_vc"><strong>Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF)</strong></li>

</ol>

<h1>or any other lens under 800USD, I use it for wedding and inside studio work.</h1>

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>What lens do you use now? And what is your current kit limiting you from doing? Once you figure out what you currently <em>can't </em>do, then the choice of which lens to buy will become clearer. For example, if you need more background blur and less depth of field, or, you shoot in extremely low light, then a prime lens may suit you better due to it's larger maximum aperture. The answers for "which lens to buy" are endless, and until you identify a problem it's hard to pinpoint a solution. Spending money on camera equipment just because you have it is not a good strategy. My usual advice is that if you have to ask others what equipment to buy then you don't need it. When you truly need a specific piece of equipment you'll know exactly what it is. </p>

<p>Get another Rebel, newest generation you can afford, so you have a backup camera body and get a Tamron non-VC 17-50mm. The non-VC version is sharper, costs less and weighs less and will serve you well for weddings and events. Good luck!</p>

I'm with Gil, if you have clients than you ought to have a backup body, and since we don't know anything more specific about what you'll do with the lens, the tamron 17-50 2.8 is your best bet. The non vc version i think is good for the money.

<blockquote>

<p>or any other lens under 800USD, I use it for wedding and inside studio work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sorry, didn't see that. For wedding, in times when you have to be dynamic, moving around a venue with such and such light condition, the surprising moment when people suddenly huddle together, and the tendency of people to stand right in front of you to take pictures with the gadgets they have, normal zoom lens with constant aperture is indispensable, at least for me. Some would go for the primes... but Imo it's not an easy thing to do.<br>

For inside studio, doing portraits... well, I'd say use whichever decent lens you have, just mind the distortion and the lighting. <br>

Of course the Canon version can be considered the best, at least compared to your list of candidates, but the price... You might try your luck with second hand one, it might fall within your budget I suppose. The Tamron is not the best of lenses, but for some of us who have to choose, it's a nice choice.</p>

<p>@ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5157732">Nathan Gardner</a> I have clearly mentioned the purpose if you kindly read it again. And I have a back up camera too a 500D, but I prefer using a 350d for better results.<br>

I SOOT wEDDINGS, INDOORS, LANDSCAPES/NATURE AND SEE IT TO STOCK.</p>

<p>My simple request is to choose a good lens under 800UDS.</p>

<p>Im bit confused here some says a tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is good some says its not very good. (is it not durable, not sharp , not good as canon or what is the problem) and if I have to consider between sigma and tamron which one is the best or may be a canon 15-85 .... i do not want a fixed prime lens.</p>

<p>AND wHAT ABOUT A CANON 17-40, TS A GREAT LENS BUT IM NOT SURE IT wILL GIVE BRILLIANT RESULT ON A SMALL CENSOR CHIP LIKE A 350D. </p>

<p>I use the Sigma 17-70 and I personally find it a good enough lens. I'm sure that lots of people will point to resolution charts that show that others lenses, e.g. the EF-S 17-55 or even the Tamron 17-50, are sharper. But for me the extra range of the Sigma 17-70 was important. I've used lenses with this effective focal length for a long time and it just suits me.</p>

<p>I was tempted by the Canon EF-S 15-85, but the Sigma was cheaper and a bit faster (f2.8-f4 compared with f3.5-f5.6) so that was what pushed m towards the Sigma.</p>

<p>But only you know what focal length suits your requirements.</p>

<p>Canon 15-85....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>AND wHAT ABOUT A CANON 17-40, TS A GREAT LENS BUT IM NOT SURE IT wILL GIVE BRILLIANT RESULT ON A SMALL CENSOR CHIP LIKE A 350D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use both the 17-40 and your 18-55 IS. I sometimes use the 18-55 for a light/compact walk-around lens on my 40D, when I'm not actually out to shoot pictures and simply want a camera handy. It can deliver some very sharp images, but it suffers greatly from chromatic aberration at some focal lengths. The 17-40 is similarly sharp, but it controls much better for CA. The lens is also much more uniform in its performance across focal lengths. It's definitely my preferred wide angle lens when I'm out shooting seriously. It's a brilliant lens when stopped down at least to f/8 (which is how I usually use wide angle lenses anyway). Of course it's also the only lens I can use when I'm shooting with my 5D. </p>

<p>If I had to ditch either lens, it would be the 18-55IS, even if I didn't have a full frame camera. That said, if I were only shooting crop, I'd seriously consider the Tamron.</p>

<p>FAIW, I usually don't recommend body upgrades over lens upgrades, but the 350D is a truly ancient camera. I woudn't use any Rebel series camera professionally (being user-friendly but expert-hostile), but neither would I use a camera that old. Even if you don't care about the resolution (and any of the lenses we're discussing will outresolve the 350D's sensor), a camera of that generation is agonizingly slow. If you're shooting weddings, you'll want a camera that will burn a few frames quickly to the CF and be done with them. If you're sometimes drumming your fingers waiting for the buffer to clear, you need to upgrade.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What Gil and Tumpal say. For weddings and studio work you need a f/2.8 zoom and a backup body. I own a Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC and it's truely an awesome lens. Every bit as sharp as my Canon 17-55/2.8 IS. As for a new rebel body, you'll be amazed by high-iso performance, vastly improved autofocus, and overall responsiveness.</p>

<p>I AM LEARNING QUICKLY! THANKS ALL.<br>

I HAVE BENDING TOWARDS A TAMRON 17-50/2.8 NON VC OR A SIGMA 17-50/2,8 (EITHER OF IT)<br>

STILL NEED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO?<br>

please help!<br>

thanks again.</p>

 

<p>Well, if it's down to two, the choice should be made by handling and feel. Photography is such a subjective art that the feel of your tools is as important as their 'absolute' maximum capabilities (which I'm sure you understand as you choose to use a 350D for professional work (over a 500D)).</p>

<p>All three are very similar in output, and the sigma, while more expensive, is a bit faster to focus (plus the OS option), but on your 350D I doubt you'll see any sig. difference. Try them both (or all three) out, and you tell us. Buy the one you like shooting with the most. </p>

<p>+1 for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC. Use the money you saved for something else (upgrade body, flash, tripod, filters, uwa lens, etc).</p>

<p>Have you looked at this review of the Sigma 17-50. There are direct comparisons off all but the Sigma 17-70 and I think the older Tamron 17-50 comes out looking pretty good given its price, warranty and I see there is a rebate right now. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-17-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-17-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>A friend of mine has the Sigma 17-50 and really likes it a lot (he has many Sigma lenses). Unforunately, it is in for repair - something to do with AF not working properly when he rotates the camera 90 degrees to shoot portraits. Hopefully this is unique to his specific lens.</p>

<p>Actually, the Canon 17-40 is a very nice lens and would be very nice on a crop body camera. My copy focuses very fast and I love the colors it produces. But your cameras are older so you don't have a lot of ISO range to make up for the f4 vs f2.8. And if you want to shoot wide open for some background blur the f4 isn't going to do much for you either. If you know for sure you will go full frame in the near future then the Canon 17-40 should get more consideration.</p>

<p>If you are buying Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, buy from a shop where you can return, as it is hard to find a good copy. Google Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and front / back focusing and you will find many complaints. I bought two new and one used and all had focusing issues. I only tested 50mm at f2.8. It is not as sharp as 50mm or 60mm at f2.8. But sharpness may not critical for you and you may not be shooting wide open.</p>

<p>and vvhat about a sigma 18-50/2.8 its just 200USD</p>

I SOOT wEDDINGS, INDOORS, LANDSCAPES/NATURE AND SEE IT TO STOCK.

 

 

Well those four areas cover all extremes of the spectrum. Yes you mentioned weddings and studio work, but thats still

broad. I shoot weddings and take about 10 lenses; from wide to telephoto zooms, primes, macro, and t/s. Even by

saying "weddings" there are still a lot of possibilities. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to help you make a good

decision. What is it that you currently want to do but can't? When you figure that out then get the lens that will allow you

to achieve your desired result. As for the 17-40mm L, it's intended as a superwide angle for full frame cameras, but that

doesn't mean it can't be used on a crop camera. However, it's f/4 aperture is too slow for weddings and the range is

shorter than the other lenses mentioned, making it not the ideal choice.

<p>I really liked Sarah's answer.</p>

<p>I really like the 17-40/4L, although I like it much better at F5.6 than F4, especially when the lighting is poor. I would get that lens rather than the others you mentioned.</p>

<p>Consider the 10-22/EF-s. It is a very good lens, and will SUPPLEMENT what you have now.</p>

<p> </p>