Confused about new lens purchase

[hemanth_s1]

<p>Hi,<br>

I have a Canon Rebel camera and have been using it with the kit lens for over 6 years but over the period I have added on to my lens collection. Now for the most used wide angle range I have the 18-55 kit lens and also have the Tamron28-75 f2.8 which is a fantastic lens. I have been thinking of replacing my kit lens with a better lens and I am considering the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C lens which has got has the good useful range and with the big aperture at wide angle. I am hoping this single lens will replace both my 18-55 and the 28-75.<br>

But I am a little confused now because 28-75 with constant 2.8 is an excellent lens and think the new lens might not do so well in this range.<br>

Am I better of going for a 17-50 f2.8 Sigma one so that I get the benefit of f2.8 through out, or does the advantage of having one lens to carry more than compensate for the loss in aperture?<br>

Please share your feedback.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Hemanth</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It all depends on your needs - what do you take photos off, under which conditions? How much of a obstacle would the loss of one stop be to your photos?<br>

I'd take a good look at the EXIF data of your photos shot the last year, to understand better which are your most used focal lengths, apertures. If you shoot 75mm f/2.8 most of the time, obviously you'd do better at hanging on to the Tamron. If you're mostly at 18-24mm, then selling the Tamron would be less of an issue.<br /> Also, would you really need fast aperture at 17-28mm? Do you use f/2.8 there? If not, you could think of pairing the 28-75 you have with a Canon 17-40 f/4, for example; the Tokina 12-28 f/4 could be interesting too. Many options, it really depends on where your preferences and needs are.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Most lenses today are sharp in the center. What differentiates between them is how sharp they can get on the edges. If you're shooting primarily people or other subjects who are in the center of the frame then any of the lenses you mentioned would work fine. But if you shoot landscapes or any other subject where corner sharpness is important then you have to choose your lens more carefully.</p>

<p>There are many test sites you can check to see the fine details between the various lenses available. Here are a few:<br>

http://www.lenstip.com/<br>

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview<br>

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php<br>

http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/lenses/aps-c</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>If you like the Tamron, I'd avoid as much overlap as you'd have with a similar range lens.<br>

If your kit lens is 6-years old it probably is not the IS version. You should at least consider the newer IS version from Canon -- it's really a "loss-leader" in terms of what you get for your money.<br>

An ultrawide such as the 10-20mm Sigma (the older one) is not too expensive, and that would give you options you might like. If you like macro (life-size images on the sensor), the Tamron 90mm (older version again) is not too expensive.<br>

For more telephoto, look at the Canon 55-250mm IS 'kit' lens - again, you won't find any better bargain, but there are other lenses in that sort of range, that would give you nice telephoto, which you don't have much of right now.</p>

<p>As people say above, what you 'need' depends on what you WANT to do.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 isn't much faster that one you've got in the kit lens. While I usually recommend a 24-70 2.8 as a "normal" lens, the 28-75 2.8 you've got is close enough. What you're missing is anything longer. What I would buy is a 70-200 2.8. If you don't want to spend the big bucks for Canon, Sigma and Tamron both make these at affordable prices. A medium zoom like the 24-70 or 28-75 plus a 70-200 are the classic bread and butter pair that cover most of what most people shoot on a day to day basis. A 12-24 or so for when you're in cramped quarters is icing on the cake.</p>

[hemanth_s1]

<p>Thanks for your responses. regarding the most often used focal length, I would say it has be between 22-40mm (landscapes) the most and aperture has kept varying depending on the shot because I never had a constant aperture to being with until I bought the tamron and even after buying it I keep using the kit lens more for its wide angle range.<br>

The reviews metrics wont help me much as they all come out close together in numbers and finally what dominates in a photo is the composition and lighting more than those numbers.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>If you want the constant f/2.8 aperture, don't forget to consider the <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/lenses/ef_s_17_55_f_2_8_is_usm">Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM</a>. It is one of the best EF-S lenses around, and many reviews compare it favorably with Canon's "L" lenses in the same focal length range. List price in the US id $880, but it can be had from the Canon refurbished store for $704 (though it's currently out of stock - check back often!).</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Personally, if I was starting all over I would go with the Sigma 17-50 rather than the Tamron 28-75mm. They are both great lenses, but the 17-50 will allow you to get closer to your subject matter while at the same time producing more intimate images.</p>