Lens for XSi = to Nikon 18-70 F/3.5-3.4 ?

[chuckunderhill]

<p>Hi Everyone,<br /> <br /> Ok, I am using a Canon XSi at the moment, and I am trying to find a lens that is basically equal to my 18-70 F/3.5-4.5 Nikon lens for sharpness. I have a Canon 50mm F/1.8 which works well, but ireally prefer a zoom, and the Canon 24-85 F/3.5-4.5, isn't nearly as crisp. My Tokina ATX Pro 28-80 F/2.8 is god awful soft past 50mm at F/2.8. The reviews say it is ok if stepped down to 4.0 at 70-80mm, but I find it has to be at least 5.6 for the shot to be sharp.<br /> <br /> I really (REALLY!) can't afford a high end Canon L-series Lens, so I was hoping there might be something mid range that was sharp like the Nikon, which is an incredibly good lens for the money. <br /> <br /> Lens I have tried:<br /> Canon EF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5 USM<br /> Canon EF 35-70mm F/3.5-4.5 USM<br /> Canon EF 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5 USM<br /> Canon EF 35-105mm F/3.5-4.5 USM<br /> Canon EF 35-135mm F/3.5-4.5 USM<br /> Tamron 28-105mm F/4.0-5.6<br /> <br /> I was seriously considering the Tamron 28-70 F/2.8 or the Sigma 28-70 F/2.8 but both are a bit more then I have to spend.<br /> <br /> At the moment the primary use for this lens will be portraits, but I also need to be able to shoot proforming arts and low light. Prime lens are a possibility, but I would prefer a zoom.<br /> <br /> Thanks in advance for any advise or suggestions.</p>

[jesse_barba]

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

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Well, if the Tamron and the Sig are too expensive, the 15-85 DEFINITELY will be too expensive.</p>

<p>I would try a Tamron 17-50/2.8 -- as it has an excellent reputation for sharp crisp work, even WO. and it shouldn't cost you more than ~$300.<br>

That or an EF 28-135/ 3.5-5.6 IS - Not as sharp (esp. WO), but properly used can produce great portraiture. Used ~$250.</p>

<p>All the lenses you've tried are old consumer zooms though, none (of these) are going to be able to produce the kind of work a new crop lens will be able to. Even if in some conditions they were capable of producing good work (the 35-105 was IME), ANY challenging lighting will result in significantly impaired IQ. They are all (except the Tamron - maybe?) many years --> decades old. Even the 18-55/IS is going to do far far better.</p>

 

[brett_w.]

<p>Forget the old film zoom lens, the 18-55<strong>IS</strong> kit lens is sharp and works great on the XSi (450D) -($100 or less used) <br>

For a little more the Tamron 17-50 2.8, Sigma 17-70 2.8, etc. will work</p>

<p> </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>I agree with Brett. I have the XSi with the 18-55mm IS lens and I am very happy with the combination. I just took them on a 2 week vacation.</p>

<p>The 18-55 will easily make 13" x 19" prints with excellent quality. I do notice a slight increase in quality with my 70-200mm f/4 IS.</p>

<p>The lens that interests me is the Canon's 15-85mm. It would be nice to increase the lens' focal length range.</p>

[tom_burke3]

<p>There's another Sigma, 17-70 f2.8-f4 OS HSM, which I've got. I bought it mainly because I find the zoom range on the 18-55 too short. It seems OK, and it gives me the range I want with reasonable speed. The price is reasonable, too. It's a bit longer at both ends than the Nikon 17-70 because of Canon's different crop, but's close enough.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>You're looking for a zoom that's sharp, fast (low light, portrait, stage performance) <em>and</em> cheap. That's a bit of a tall order.</p>

<p>I suggest thinking some more about Tamron 28-75/2.8. It has a good reputation. I've got T17-50/2.8 which is optically similar, and I can tell you it's very sharp.</p>

<p>Some primes you may want to look at are Canon 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2, and 135/2.8 SF. I have the 85 and it's a really nice lens for the money. Wide open it beats the 50/1.8 by quite a bit.</p>

<p>Another nice lens for portraiture is Tokina 50-135/2.8. Sadly it's been discontinued. You may be able to find a used one. They were about 500 bucks new. I have one of these and it's a sharp lens. The AF is clunky though, and won't track action even on my 7D.</p>

<p>I've heard there's a Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS on the way but chances are it won't come cheap.</p>

 

[jan_c.d._thiermann]

<p>Canon 15-85, totally agree. </p>

[paddler4]

<p>Folks, Chuck said that the Tamron 28-75 is a bit steep, so the 15-85, which I have and love, is not a very helpful suggestion. Here are the current prices at B&H:<br>

Canon 18-55 IS: $170<br>

Tamron 28-57 f/2.8: $424<br>

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-IS: 434<br>

Canon 15-85: $739.<br>

I don't have the Tamron 17-50, but it has a wonderful reputation. I do have the Tamron 28-75, and it is an excellent lens on a crop sensor camera.<br>

Here are my suggestions, for what they are worth:<br>

--stay away from superzooms (large zoom ratio)--they tend not to be good.<br>

--If you want to stay with something inexpensive, I think the Canon 18-55 is a reasonable way to go. Unlike the older 18-55s, which were not very good (I had one), the newer ones test well for the price, and lots of happy users post about them. Either of the Tamrons would be a reasonable step up, if you can swing it, the choice being just one of which focal length range you prefer. I have zero experience with Sigma lenses, but there might be some good choices there as well.</p>

[chuckunderhill]

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>Thank you for your info and suggestions, it is all very helpful. I will look into getting a 18-55 IS, I believe a friend of mine has one that he got with his Canon.<br>

While the 15-85 Canon is out of my current price range, I do plan to purchase one, but until it was mentioned here, it wasn't even on my radar. This is all great information to know. :) The Tamron lens and Sigma 28-70 range was on my list for my next lens purchase. But it is going to be a while.<br>

Honestly, I was fairly impressed with the Nikon lens for the price and sharpness, and I tried to think along the lines of my Canon, and drew a blank as to which Canon lens was comparable.<br>

Thanks again everyone!</p>