Lens to Complement 17-50? 10-20 or 70-300

Hi,

 

I currently own the Tamron 17-50 (excellent lens). I have a budget of about $500. (perhaps more). I''m trying to

decide which lens to buy first (within the $500 budget). I have been looking at either the Sigma 10-20 or the

Canon 70-300 IS. (maybe 55-250 IS). Eventually, I will own both a wide angle and the telephoto. But for now, I

need to decide between these two.

 

So, here is the deal, I plan on traveling to Europe in May 2009. Since, I'm saving for that trip, I can only buy

one lens. Last time I was in Europe I remember wanting a wider lens. (I took a Sigma 18-125). So, I thought the

Sigma 10-20 would be nice,. But, I'm also concerned that the 17-50 won't be long enough. So, then I started

thinking about the Canon 70-300 IS.

 

I already own an older Tamron 70-300 (which is decent, but sucks after 200mm, and no IS), a Canon 50mm, and the

Sigma 18-125. In a pinch, I could use the Tamron 70-300.

 

One possibility is to buy a Sigma 10-20 now, and possible save up more to buy a Canon 55-250 IS, before the trip.

Still that is about $800. But, I'm not sure whether I should get the 55-250 IS now, only to buy the 70-300 IS. I

have read all the reviews, it seems like a great lens, "very close" in IQ to the 70-300 IS, but the 70-300 IS

still better.

 

Also, wanted to add that I like to shoot candids, family shots, some parties/social events. My current camera is

a Rebel XT.

 

Any thoughts? Suggestions?

<p>

<i>Last time I was in Europe I remember wanting a wider lens.</i>

</p>

<p>

I see a Sigma 10-20 in your future. It's probably not the lens for the people shots you mention in your final paragraph. but you already have the lens for that (Tamron 17-50).

</p>

I would vote wider as well, I would think most of your shots would be inside tight places or scenery people etc so getting

more would seem more important then zooming in.

So, a 10-20 and a 17-50 to Europe? But no 70-300? What about the 55-250IS?

I think it was Tommy said in a different thread "Go to the camera store and try them out." Then you'll know which one (55-250 or 70-300) you really want.

 

If you like the 55-250, get that.

If you like the 70-300, wring out the wallet and get that.

If you can't raise the money, go with the old Tamron

 

I personally would not buy the 55-250 if I really wanted the 70-300.

Another vote for the 10-20.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

It really depends on the kind of images you like to shoot. Personally, if I take my 10-22 and 17-50 and 70-300, I will end up with 80% of all shots being taken with the 17-50, and 10% with each of the other two.

 

Since you already own a 70-300 (even if its only usable til 200) I would go for the UWA 10-20 and use your old tele zoom until you can afford a new one. Then again ... why don't you sell the 18-125 and the 70-300 and get the EFS 55-250?

This thread isn't about lenses- its about what sort of photographs you like to take and how much money you should spend on your equipment. Neither of these can be contributed to very successfully by others. I assume that your current lens array leaves you unable to take the sort of photographs you like, at the quality levels you aspire to? If not, then don't buy till a real need (other than a desire to keep buying new gear) becomes obvious to you. If so, then buy the lens that fills the gap and will work alongside those current lenses you're happy with.

 

Just two little thoughts. If your primary photography is of people and events, then for me a telephoto lens, especially one with IS , would be more useful more often than a wide angle long term.

 

Second, whenever a thread about travelling to Europe emerges, people from outside Europe pile in, largely suggesting ever wider lenses. I photograph in Europe a lot - certainly for several weeks every year, and I don't think thats best advice. In fact its pretty hard to use an extreme wide well in constrained town and city environments, and for landscapes- well unless you have a real near/far composition available or you're planning to crop for panoramics a very wide lens more often than not results in amorphous unstructured shots with no point of interest and huge often featureless skies. Less than 10% of my shots (so Lightroom tells me) are made with my 17-40 /full frame, and well over 60% on my 24-105/full frame. Meanwhile a telephoto gets lots of use both in landscapes and for picking out details.

Last fall I spent two months in Europe. Lenses in my bag were Tamron 17-50, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 90/2.8. I used the Tamron 17-50 for maybe 60% of shots, the Sigma for about 30%, the 90 mm lens for perhaps 10% of shots.

 

So I too vote for the Sigma. Ultrawide is fun, great for architecture and cityscapes. Puts things in perspective...

 

I suppose you could bring the 70-300 and just use the short end of it, stay within its sweet spot. No real need for 300 mm anyways. Then again the 55-250 IS is a nice lens, decently sharp, very effective IS, good autofocus, mediocre bokeh, very light which is great for travel. I just got one, only taken it out a few times, happy so far, looking forward to travelling with it.

Every time I go to Europe I take my 70-200 lens. Of the 2,000 pics I take, maybe 10 are with that lens (and mastly under 120mm). Go wide, a deep zoom doesn't have that many applications in European travel photos.

Sounds like wide is the consensus.

 

My last trip I tried to go light -- Tamron 17-50 + Canon 70-210. If I was to add another lens, it would have been my

Tokina 12-24.

 

You have the rest covered, go wide.