Which one? Narrowed down my list of lenses

[jennifer ann]

I have an XTi. I have the 18-55 kit lens which I am not happy with.

 

I have narrowed it down to these for a general walk around lens to replace my

kit lens:

 

Canon EFS 17-85 F4-5.6 USM IS

 

Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 II USM

 

Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 DC Macro

 

 

I do not have the money for an L lens but I want more quality than my kit lens

is giving me. Budget is 350 - 450 aprrox.

Do I need IS? I really want something that is going to give me a sharp picture.

I am very unhappy with my current lens, and I do use a tripod.

Thanks for all your help!

[ben_quinn1]

If you want sharp above all else consider primes e.g. EF 50 f/1.4, EF 85 f/1.8 or perhaps a EF 28mm f/1.8 in your budget. For super sharp the EFS 60mm f/2.8 macro.

 

Or for around $600 you could get the EF 17-40 f/4 L? Seems to be worth the extra few hundred if you are stuck on a zoom.

[tdigi]

What are yo not happy with? If its speed I don't think any of these lenses will really be that

much of an upgrade. Maybe try the new kit lens with IS. Its cheaper then all the above (

about $180) . If its in you budget couple it with a 28 1.8 when you need a fast "normal

like" lens.

 

Or maybe a Tamron 17-50 2.8 as a good all around zoom

 

What is your budget?

[jeff_higdon]

To keep it a fair fight, you'd probably be better off comparing the Canon 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS rather than the 28-105 you mentioned. I had the 28-105 and was not very pleased. I am happy with the 17-85 but not real thrilled with its indoor capabilities.

 

Overall I think all three lenses (the Sigma, the 17-85 and the 28-135 w IS) have large loyal followings. I would question whether the 28mm gives you a wide enough shot on a cropped camera such as the Xti (which I also use).

[mendonphoto]

Forget primes. They're a niche product, and therefore overpriced (with a few exceptions, like the 50mm f/1.8, and some macro lenses).

 

Also, you've listed several lenses that, although should be better than what you have, are not really that sharp. It seems you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too - better optical quality AND more zoom range.

 

If better optical quality is really that important to you, don't go for something in the 17-85mm range. Those types of lenses are made for people that don't like to change lenses very often, but don't care too much about sharpness (although some of them are okay).

 

The best value in lenses, while still achieving good quality, is usually in limited range zooms - 2X or 3X.

 

The Canon 17-40mm is very good - but maybe a bit expensive for you because it is for FF cameras. There are also some lenses in the 18-55m f/2.8 range for APS-C cameras from 3rd party manufacturers that are very good and reasonably priced.

 

Check out www.photozone.de for a comprehensive set of lens tests. That the place I start when I'm looking for a lens.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Two of the three lenses you cite include the same zoom range as your current lens and then a bit more; one of them lacks the wide end. Do you need the wide end? If so (and, to me, that's pretty important if you're looking for one general-purpose lens), then the 28-105 falls off the list. It's a good walkabout lens on a film body, but not on 1.6-crop.</p>

 

<p>I don't know the Sigma, even by reputation, so I can't comment on it. The Canon 17-85 is a high-end consumer lens, offering better optics, build quality, and AF speed than your kit lens. I find IS very useful, as I prefer to shoot handheld when possible (where IS is useful), on a monopod sometimes (and IS works well here, too), and on a tripod only when absolutely necessary (IS, at least in the 17-85, will not help here).</p>

[ajb2222]

I second the Tamron 17-50 2.8

 

I am looking at this lens.

 

check out www.pixel-peeper.com, they search for pictures by lens. makes it easy to compare lenses.

[trebor_navilluso]

Faced with the same decision I opted for the Sigma.

 

The 28-105 and Sigma arr probably tied on Image quality. But 28 is not wide enough on a crop body.

 

The 17-85 is a handy focal range, but I found it to be inferior to the sigma on image quality (sharpness and CA's or purple fringing).

 

The Sigma is also the smallest, and I believe the cheapest. Go with that.

[bueh]

If you really want a sharp picture, go for primes. The faster, the better, but virtually all Canon primes are excellent performers. Optically they are often as least as good as expensive pro zooms, while being much more affordable, lighter and (sometimes) faster. But they lack the convenience of variable focal lengths, of course. You decide what is more important for you.

[g dan mitchell]

"Canon EFS 17-85 F4-5.6 USM IS

 

Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 II USM

 

Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 DC Macro"

 

First, to other posters, let's stop with the 50mm prime recommendation for folks starting with better lenses for a crop sensor

DSLR. While Canon makes some fine 50mm primes, some at excellent prices, this is an oddball focal length for a starting lens

in all but the most unusual situations. While it is a decent portrait prime it is most definitely _NOT_ a good starting choice for

the vast majority of crop sensor DSLR shooters - who benefit from the versatility of a zoom and almost certainly want wider

angles of view.

 

As to the other lenses, I do not have a specific "right answer" for you, but I have a few thoughts.

 

The Canon EFS 17-85mm f/4-f/6 IS lens has an attractive focal length range and the inclusion of IS is a good thing. This can

be a fine lens for some types of shooters depending upon their goals, what they'll do with the photographs, and their

priorities. However, there are downsides. You did not explain what you are unhappy with about the current 18-55 kit lens. If

the issue is image quality, you may also be disappointed in the more expensive 17-55mm EFS. While its IQ can be good

enough for perhaps letter size prints and online viewing, it is not an outstanding performer in IQ terms. It suffers from some

corner softness, more than average vignetting, and some potentially significant barrel/pincushion distortion, along with more

than average chromatic aberration. Overall, its IQ will be not that different from that of the 18-55. (I have personal experience

with this lens.)

 

I do not have any direct experience with the other lenses, but I have some general comments.

 

For most people in your situation the minimum 28mm focal length of the 28-105 would be a problem on your crop sensor

camera. Since 31mm is a "normal" focal length on a crop body, 28mm is really not a wide angle at all. Basically this lens gives

you "normal to somewhat long" but no wide angle coverage. Now, if you have been uninterested in shooting wider than 28mm

on your current lens you may be fine with this - otherwise you will not be happy with this as an only lens. (It could possibly

complement your existing lens and give you better coverage of subjects needing a longer focal length.)

 

I have no experience with the Sigma lens so I cannot comment at all on build or image quality issues. Be sure to consult

review sites for more info on that. The 17-70mm focal length range seems attractive - not significantly different from the

range of the EFS 17-85mm lens. The f/28 aperture at the wide end could well be useful as long as the IQ is good. Obviously,

there is no aperture advantage at the long end where it goes to f/5.6. I note that it also does not have IS.

 

There are a few other options to think about.

 

I mentioned one above - keep the 18-55 for wide angle coverage and consider the 28-105 or similar range. Another thought:

if your primary concern with the current kit lens is image quality, the newer version of this lens is getting very good reviews

for its image quality. In addition it adds image stabilization and the price is well within your budget. It might be a very good

solution with your budget limitations. At a price of less than $200 you might have enough left over to perhaps look for a used

copy of a longer prime such as an 85mm lens to extend your range a bit.

 

If there is some flexibility in your budget - or if you can wait a bit and accumulate some additional funds - the Canon EFS 17-

55mm f/2.8 IS lens would provide a lot of excellent value, especially if your "issues" with the current kit lens are mainly IQ

and low light shooting. This lens will produce IQ that is competitive with L lens options.

 

Good luck,

 

Dan

[ken munn]

My walk around is a Sigma 18-50 f2.8. Tack sharp, good aperture for a zoom, built like a

brick outhouse, comes with a lens hood (something which Canon expect you to pay extra

for at consumer lens levels). In budget for you. I chose aperture over IS when picking the

Sigma - I'd rather have more light at this focal length than a wobble-stopper.

 

What don't I like about it. Could usefully be 10 or 20mm longer (but then I suspect it

would lose performance). Be nice if the manual focus ring didn't move when it

autofocuses.

[geoffs1]

I'd check the Photozone.de (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/314-sigma-af-18-50mm-f28-ex-dc-aspherical-if-test-report--review ) review. The corner sharpness isn't great, and the chromatic-aberrations (color-fringing) are really horrid.

[geoffs1]

Opps, sorry the above link is for the Signma 18-50mm f/2.8 review.

 

FWIW, Photozone got pretty good results fro their tests of the Sigma 17-70mm you mention in your original list: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/312-sigma-af-17-70mm-f28-45-dc-macro-test-report--review?start=1

[jennifer ann]

My shooting interests are landscape/sunrise/sunsets. Flowers, pets, and things like that. I do want the flexibility of a small zoom. I am not interested in a prime right now. I do like to print out my pics at a

11x14 size for local competitions and critiques. So that said, I am not happy with the image quality, the softness, the chromatic-aberrations.

The Sigma interested me with its wide angle and somewhat "macro" capabilities as I really wanted the 100mm Macro, but it is not in the budget right now and I really think I need to upgrade my kit lens.

Any other suggestions or ideas?

[ralph_jensen]

G Dan Mitchell, in the second of his "large" paragraphs, said:

 

"You did not explain what you are unhappy with about the current 18-55 kit lens. If the issue is image quality, you may also be disappointed in the more expensive 17-55mm EFS."

 

I'm pretty sure this was a typo and that he meant the 17-85 (he sang the praises later of the pricier, and better, 17-55).

[ken munn]

Geoff,

 

The Photozone review of the Sigma 18-50 is for the previous version. The current lens has

'macro' added to the description and seems to have undergone quite a few design

improvements.

[songtsen]

<p><i>"My shooting interests are landscape/sunrise/sunsets. Flowers, pets, and things like that. I do want the flexibility of a small zoom... The Sigma interested me with its wide angle and somewhat "macro" capabilities..."</i></p>

 

<p>I replaced my kit lens with a Tamron 17-50/2.8 a couple of weeks ago. This is a great lens! Very sharp pictures and quite good in most low-light situations. Not a macro lens though and possibly a bit shorter than what you may have in mind (although I'm not sure why you would need telephoto capabilities for landscapes).</p>

 

<p>You may want to read this if you're considering the Sigma 17-70:

<b>http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_3rdparty.html</b>.

 

<p><i>PS - Sorry, tried to link to LensPlay for you but it seems the 'link' tag is not allowed on photo.net.</i></p>

[songtsen]

<p>Link to article on LensPlay:</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_3rdparty.html" rel="nofollow"><b>3rd Party Lenses</b></a></p>

[correct_exposure]

Canon 28 1.8 prime. No zoom in this price range can touch it's IQ quality. Use your feet for zoom. It is a normal lens on your camera.

 

The 17-55 IS zoom is the best zoom you can buy for a crop body in terms of low light, IQ and speed. Save your money until you can buy this lens if you have to have a zoom.

 

Try renting lenses too. Doesn't cost much at all to do. Just a thought..

[arie_vandervelden1]

If you're unhappy with the c/a that the kit lens has, I would think you're not going to be ecstatic about Canon 17-85 or Sigma 17-70. When I was shopping around for a standard lens last year, I evaluated the 17-70 carefully and eliminated it because I could actually see the c/a through the viewfinder. Test shots confirmed what I was seeing in the viewfinder. Really nice lens otherwise.

 

I ended up with a Tamron 17-50/2.8. Great lens, I'm very happy with it. f/2.8 all the way is very nice, and the lens is very sharp. There are some abberations, but no big deal. Great travel lens.

 

Rather than replacing the kit lens with another all-in-one solution, I'd think about a two-lens setup. Landscape, flower macros, and pets, and having high image quality to boot is no easy task for a single lens, but there are some good options with a two-lens combo.

 

Within your budget: the Canon IS kit lens combo.

 

A bit above your budget: Tamron 17-50/2.8 plus 55-250 IS kit lens.

[sangre_k]

"Or for around $600 you could get the EF 17-40 f/4 L?"

 

i second this motion.

you will be happy with it.

[ken munn]

$600 is rather more than $450 in the budget, though.

[gordon_logue]

My vote is for the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 DC Macro. I have no complaints. Even without a polarizer on the water(as in sailing or fishing), it is great. But it is not the equal to an L lens. Good for the price. I just got a Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 VC that is showing itself to be a very good lens.

ciao

[William Michael]

> I do like to print out my pics at a 11x14 size for local competitions and critiques. So that said, I am not happy with the image quality, the softness, the chromatic-aberrations. (of the kit lens I have) <

 

 

Attacking this from a different latitude, I come up with the same answers / advice / comments as many others have mentioned.

 

 

I have quite intimate knowledge of the IQ, softness and CA of the kit lens: I have one and have used it extensively for landscape and similar work, always using steady tripod.

 

 

Assuming that you are:

 

 

. using this kit lens between F7 and F10

 

 

. you have a steady tripod (read industrial strength)

 

 

. you are using mirror lock up and a release

 

 

. a relatively low ISO

 

 

. you are shooting RAW

 

 

. you understand correct post production sharpening and processing to reduce the CA

 

 

. you have access to software the calibre of CS3

 

 

. you have the prints done at a pro lab

 

 

If all of the above apply and you are still unhappy with the 11 x 14 results, then in my opinion there is now way in this lifetime you will be happy with the images from any of the three lenses you list: no way, ever.

 

I state the previous emphatically based on my knowledge of lens design and lens theory only: I have not used any of the three lenses you mentioned for choice of purchase.

 

Although you have dismissed the option, IMO, within the budget (US $ I assume): you need a prime or two.

 

WW

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Ralph caught me writing:

 

<blockquote>"You did not explain what you are unhappy with about the current 18-55 kit lens. If the issue is image quality, you

may also be disappointed in the more expensive 17-55mm EFS."</blockquote>

 

<p>And then suggested:

 

<blockquote>I'm pretty sure this was a typo and that he meant the 17-85 (he sang the praises later of the pricier, and better, 17-

55)."</blockquote>

 

<p>Good catch - and thanks for correcting that. I did indeed mean to refer to the 17-85mm lens here. My bad...

 

<p>Dan