Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 6, 2011, 7:41 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default Choice for a third lens for Canon Rebel XTi?

I shoot with a Canon Rebel XTi. The two lenses I use now are

Sigma DC OS 18-200 mm F3.5-6.3
Sigma DC EX 10-20mm F4-5.6

Previously I primarily shot urban landscapes, but I've been shooting people more often of late, if that's of any significance.

I'm considering this lens as sort of an "in between" alternative, particularly because I find myself shooting in low light situations quite often:

Tamron SP 17-50MM F/2.8 Di II XR VC LD Aspherical (IF)

http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/pro...m_term=banners

Would this be a wise investment? I plan to keep the body for a while.

Any advice would be appreciated.

dg
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 7, 2011, 9:53 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Id get the EFS 17-55 IS
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2011, 10:11 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

Thanks.

But I should point out that the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras is $1,159.00, while the Tamron is $588.97.

While I realize that to a certain extent you "get what you pay for," the EF-S isn't even close to what I can justify or afford.

I'm just wondering whether the Tamron will do the job and serve as a good choice for a lens, given what I currently use.

dg
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2011, 11:28 AM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

the tamron 17-50 with the VC was something many people were looking forward to since the original tamron 17-50 without VC was so good, so adding image stabilization should have made a perfect lens.

however, the VC version of the lens was not as good optically as the original, which was a disappointment to many. it is not a bad lens, but it is not as good as the original tamron 17-50 without VC. so you may consider getting the original 17-50 2.8 without VC, it will save you some money too.

another option would be Sigma's 17-50 2.8 with OS. unlike the tamron, from the reviews and samples i have seen this version with the OS (image stabilization) is better than their 18-50 2.8 without it. From what I can see its not quite as sharp as tamron's non-VC 17-50, but it is sharper than their 17-50 with VC.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2011, 11:46 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

Thanks so much for the informative reply.

Just to be sure, you're saying that if I want OS (or VC), then theSigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom Lens for Canon DSLRs with APS-C Sensors

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_EX_DC.html

would be a better choice than the Tamron I've been looking at.

If that's the case I'm fine with it: it's around the same price and I'm very happy with my other two Sigma lenses.

Thanks.

dg
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2011, 12:46 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

For pure image quality, yes, the Sigma is slightly better, is sharper, especially in the center and as you get close to 50mm. Distortion is pretty similar, the bokeh seems a tad smoother on the Sigma.

One drawback of the sigma is that it is not internal focusing, so the filter will rotate while it is focusing. this could be a problem if you use a circular polarizer, if not, then probably not a big deal.

in the end, they are very similar. the sigma is sharper a bit and has silent focus. the tamron is internal focusing and a bit cheaper.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2011, 12:53 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

Thanks again.

I had to check for a definition of internal focusing because I have typically used a circular polarizer on my other lenses, but I suppose I can go with a regular polarizer.

dg
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2011, 1:20 PM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

dg.

you will need a circular polarizer for modern dslr/slr to autofocus and meter correctly. a linear polarizer will mess up this for most.

if you use a circular polarizer often, then the non-moving front element on the Tamron would probably be worth the image quality difference between the two, and the Tamron you originally posted may be a better choice for your specific case.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2011, 1:23 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

Great--then I think I am sold. Thanks all of your extremely helpful advice.

dg
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2011, 5:13 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

>>>One drawback of the sigma is that it is not internal focusing, so the filter will rotate while it is focusing.

Actually, it is: I tried it out @ B&H and the front of the lens doesn't rotate.

I got that and a Hoya circular polarizer.

Thanks for for your help: The sample shots I took look really sharp.

dg
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:34 PM.