Canon Fit , 2.8 Lenses

gothgirl

gothgirl

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,589
Edit My Images
Yes
Having considered it long and hard, I've decided that as photography is such a big hobby / escape / therapy for me I am going to have to save up, bite the bullet and put more money towards a better low light lens .

So I'm going to up my original plan of about £150... to around £250 - £300 for a used lens , ideally no more .

I'm going to put my 18-55 STM lens towards it too , so because of this I want to really read up on the lenses that I am considering... I don't want to make the mistake of getting another lens, like the sigma 17-50 2.8 which was really poor quality in my opinion , and I ended up selling that and going back to my 18-55 STM .


I would like something that can equal or better the quality of the 18-55 STM as well as being a bit faster , and better in low light .

If I could afford a L , I would like to get a 2.8 L but I also don't want to be "Brand Blinded" , and I am now open to the fact that I might get another lens with comparable quality from another brand such as sigma or tamrom .

I need something that has a similar range to the kit lens (18-55 ) as I need something that starts off well below 50mm , It also needs to be something that can be used in low light indoor venues such as dog and horse shows, where flash is not allowed And also live music photography , which again no flash .

Basically I need something with the range of kit lens, but more versatile for low light .
 
Last edited:
The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 should be rather good, it gets good reviews and is as far as I know about the same as the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 I once owned. Is it possibly you had a dud or one that needed adjusting to your camera?

The Canon 17-55mm wasn't out when I had Canon APS-C but personally I'd have been put off by the bulk and weight and possibly by the quality of the lens too as from what I've read there've been more than a few problems with them and if faced with the same choice again I'd probably go for the same Tamron.
 
woof woof said:
The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 should be rather good, it gets good reviews and is as far as I know about the same as the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 I once owned. Is it possibly you had a dud or one that needed adjusting to your camera?

The Canon 17-55mm wasn't out when I had Canon APS-C but personally I'd have been put off by the bulk and weight and possibly by the quality of the lens too as from what I've read there've been more than a few problems with them and if faced with the same choice again I'd probably go for the same Tamron.
Click to expand...

It was the Sigma AF 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Lens that I had .

I sent it back to Harrison's Cameras ( who I got it from ) and they tested it and said it was all working perfectly fine , just that I had to expect from a older lens it would be slow and not as sharp as my 18=55 STM .

For me it was just too slow , and rarely sharp enough.
 
gothgirl said:
Strange , quite a few revies on DPR , saying it's quite soft and a bit slow to focus .
Click to expand...
Like I said, I only used it briefly, but I found the af to be every bit as fast as my Nikon (which was more than quick enough). I'm sure others on here own or owned the lens, iirc @Phil V used to use this lens, perhaps he could comment.
 
gothgirl said:
It was the Sigma AF 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Lens that I had .

I sent it back to Harrison's Cameras ( who I got it from ) and they tested it and said it was all working perfectly fine , just that I had to expect from a older lens it would be slow and not as sharp as my 18=55 STM .

For me it was just too slow , and rarely sharp enough.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that. These lenses should be plenty sharp but speed is another question. From what I remember of the Tamron I had it was sharp enough on the subject at f2.8. Actually until I went mirrorless that lens was the sharpest zoom lens I'd ever used and so sharp that portraits became a bit of an issue.

I don't know what else is on the market, your choice may be Sigma 18-50mm, Tamron 17-50mm or Canon 17-55mm. There's also the Sigma 17-35mm f1.8, that gets good reviews but it's shorter at the long end than the others.
 
PaulButler said:
Like I said, I only used it briefly, but I found the af to be every bit as fast as my Nikon (which was more than quick enough). I'm sure others on here own or owned the lens, iirc @Phil V used to use this lens, perhaps he could comment.
Click to expand...
I sent mine back because it was frankly not good enough for the intended purpose (the only lens I've ever sent back btw) I swapped it for a Sigma 24-70 ex which we still own, and eventually bought the Canon 17-55 which I also still own (despite the fact that I'm 90% FF I'm struggling to let go of it).
 
Phil V said:
I sent mine back because it was frankly not good enough for the intended purpose (the only lens I've ever sent back btw) I swapped it for a Sigma 24-70 ex which we still own, and eventually bought the Canon 17-55 which I also still own (despite the fact that I'm 90% FF I'm struggling to let go of it).
Click to expand...
Is there more than one 17-55 in canon ? This is where shooting Nikon doesn't help me ;)
 
gothgirl said:
Yes @Phil V please elaborate ?

Which was the lens you sent back , and which is the one you have now ?
Click to expand...
The lens I sent back was the Sigma 17-50 it was horrible, bad CA, not very sharp.
The lens I eventually bought was the Canon 17-55 2.8 which is brilliant.
PaulButler said:
Is there more than one 17-55 in canon ? This is where shooting Nikon doesn't help me ;)
Click to expand...
There's only 1 Canon 17-55, there's several 18-55s though.
 
Nd just for clarity - I hated that lens, but not because it was Sigma, but because it was crap. I've also had the 10-20 which was great, the 24-70 which is optically great but has the worst focus motor of any zoom I've owned, and I have the Art 35mm which is amongst the top 5 lenses I've ever used.
 
The 17-55 seems like it could be a contender then , I will have to read more reviews , as the reviews on DP give me pause , same problems that I had with the sigma, slow and soft !
 
Phil V said:
The lens I sent back was the Sigma 17-50 it was horrible, bad CA, not very sharp.
The lens I eventually bought was the Canon 17-55 2.8 which is brilliant.

There's only 1 Canon 17-55, there's several 18-55s though.
Click to expand...
I feel better now ... thought I was going mad for a mo' as the lens I used (Canon 17-55 f2.8) was excellent.
 
gothgirl said:
The 17-55 seems like it could be a contender then , I will have to read more reviews , as the reviews on DP give me pause , same problems that I had with the sigma, slow and soft !
Click to expand...
The Canon 17-55 is generally hailed as one of the non designated L lenses.
 
Phil V said:
The Canon 17-55 is generally hailed as one of the non designated L lenses.
Click to expand...

That sounds good then , if it does what I need it to do, is faster than the 18-55 STM and cab perform better in low light,,,I could be on to a winner .
 
I had the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro, which was great on my 60D, really sharp, pretty quick to focus. There was an older version which was the 18-50 f2.8 EX DC non-macro.
Both these versions have been replaced by the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM, which is quicker to focus and has stabilisation.
The one you had could have been a dud, very worn out, or it might have needed micro-adjustment.

The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 equivalent is worth a look. They have two versions one with and one without VC (image stabilisation). Some say that the non-VC is actually sharper.

The Canon EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM is a very good lens, but does have a bit of an issue with reliability/build, particularly the electronics and ribbon cables inside. My brother's lens has had to be repaired 3 times!
They're also more expensive than the Sigma/Tamrons, you'd be lucky to find a good one in your budget.
 
I always pay a little bit more , and buy from someone like wex, mpb or lce so I have some comeback in terms of issues .

I think both the tamron and canon sound best .

I really like the sound of the 24 stm 2.8 prime , but after using my 50 1.8 at a gig (which I love ) I think I'd be better with a zoom , as I was constantly having to change the lens for different shots.
 
That's the one. It's about £550 new so might find it used for a lower price. But if you want sharp and fast there's probably no better zoom for crop cameras
 
I now shoot full frame with a Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L.

Prior to going full frame I had a Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS.

Sharpness and autofocus speed/capability between these two lenses is completely indistinguishable. The 17-55mm is that good.

I used it for one of your intended uses - gigs. It never missed a beat on my old 7D.
 
You could just opt for a 50mm f1.8 prime lens and move around more like we did in the days when these were the standard/prime lenses on our film cameras
 
ABTog said:
The Canon EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM is a very good lens, but does have a bit of an issue with reliability/build, particularly the electronics and ribbon cables inside. My brother's lens has had to be repaired 3 times!
Click to expand...
Ah, the fallacy of hasty generalization.

I've owned over a dozen of these and my experience is that the reliability has been fine. I can't compare it directly to the Sigma/Tamron equivalents because I haven't owned them in significant quantities. So when I say "fine" I'm comparing it with my stocks of pro-spec lenses generally.

I'll be the first to say that the build quality feels a bit disappointing. For a lens of this price it feels like it's made of relatively cheap lightweight plastic, and it doesn't exude an aura of tightness and solidity like some other lenses do. But in reality it doesn't seem to be a problem.

And of course it's brilliant optically.
 
Pete B said:
You could just opt for a 50mm f1.8 prime lens and move around more like we did in the days when these were the standard/prime lenses on our film cameras
Click to expand...

Just not possible in afraid , you take a step back at a dog or horse show and you'll have a fence in your shot , or people will step in front of you

Same at gigs , people are there to listen to the music they don't care if they block your view (or knock your camera out of your hands) you have to find a spot at the front and fight to keep it .

Without a doubt my 50mm 1.8 would beat image quality from my 18-55 stm hands Dow in these venues , but I might also only be able to get half the shots or less that I wanted because it was too close .

My original thought was to get the 24mm 2.8 , but then id have to do exactly what I have to do now which is switch lenses between shots

StewartR said:
Ah, the fallacy of hasty generalization.

I've owned over a dozen of these and my experience is that the reliability has been fine. I can't compare it directly to the Sigma/Tamron equivalents because I haven't owned them in significant quantities. So when I say "fine" I'm comparing it with my stocks of pro-spec lenses generally.

I'll be the first to say that the build quality feels a bit disappointing. For a lens of this price it feels like it's made of relatively cheap lightweight plastic, and it doesn't exude an aura of tightness and solidity like some other lenses do. But in reality it doesn't seem to be a problem.

And of course it's brilliant optically.
Click to expand...

Seems like the best option for me at the minute

Im going to keep an eye out for one
 
StewartR said:
Ah, the fallacy of hasty generalization.

I've owned over a dozen of these and my experience is that the reliability has been fine. ........

And of course it's brilliant optically.
Click to expand...
You're in a different position to most users, as a lens hire company you've probably seen lots of lenses, fair enough. That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. I said it was a "bit of a problem", I'm clearly not saying it affects every lens.

Anyway, back on track.

The Canon EFS 17-55 f2.8 is a very good lens, but it's quite pricey. MPB for example, have a used one for £409
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...s/canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f-2-8-is-usm/sku-630606/

They also have a Tamron SP 17-50mm f2.8 VC (ie with image stabilisation) for £199 (currently on offer)
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...-vc-ld-aspherical-if-canon-ef-fit/sku-618692/

And there's the newest version of the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS for £214
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...m-f-2-8-ex-dc-os-hsm-canon-ef-fit/sku-630788/

Either the Tamron or Sigma represent a significant saving over the Canon, they are also smaller and a fair bit lighter that the Canon.
If you can afford the Canon 17-55 f2.8, then go for it. If £300 is your top price, then you should be able to find either the Tamron or Sigma for that amount, possibly even a new one if you look around.
 
I'd opt for in the following order:

Canon 17-55mm is USM
Sigma 17-50mm OS - not to be confused with other sigma lenses in this range that are all a bit rubbish
Tamron 17-50mm non VC or VC if you like stabilisation
 
Canon 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens I have had it about 4 years and its been great, sharp and consistent. I did have Tamron 17-50 vc focus is a little slower and less consistent than the canon and at 2.8 is was a bit softer. The canon is better but not by miles maybe 15-20% better.
 
I'll throw in my vote for the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, have one and its a great lens, OK its not L quality as in all metal, but then again all L lenses are not created equal. Keep an eye on the classifieds as sometimes they pop up in there, although most owners tend to keep them as they are that good. If someone is moving to FF you might get lucky though.
 
Have you considered the cheap work round ,go for two or three different focal length 35mm film era lenses ,I.e a mid range 135mm f2.8 lens will probably set you back with eos adaptor around £20 to £30 ,o.k you will have to shoot manually both settings and focus but it's easily learnt ,you will then have large apeture ,prime lens flexibility and cheapness ,I would suggest 50,135,and 200 mm as starting points and/or a zoom or two there's some super lenses out there for peanuts cost wise ,just avoid anything that mentions dust of fungus in the advert
 
I've got a Simga 17-50 OS and I probably wouldn't if I had had another choice (my walkabout lens broke on holiday and this was what the local camera shop had). The OS has a serious issue that you need to give it a moment to "settle" before taking the picture, as in activate AF / OS and then pause a moment and take the picture. If you are not careful and try and rush a shot with it on, soft blurred picture. I remember being out with it at the start and getting really mixed results. With a little practise its either turn off OS or pause in shooting. I got used to it, but shouldn't really have had to...

Hope this helps a little.
 
Echo the comments of others here - the 17-55 is what you want. Amazing lens optically but build quality isn't up there with the best. Just make sure you find a well looked-after example. I used to own one myself and loved it to bits.

Many comment that it's an "L" in all but name. Optically I'd agree but it's nowhere near the build quality of a genuine L lens. For the record, Canon will never make an EF-S "L" lens as they don't work on full frame.
 
gothgirl said:
Strange , quite a few revies on DPR , saying it's quite soft and a bit slow to focus .
Click to expand...
The Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is a brilliant lens. The best walk around on a crop camera. I have owned many of them as every time i sold of switched back to Canon it was my first purchase. Large and heavy though if that matters to you.
 
scottduffy said:
The Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is a brilliant lens. The best walk around on a crop camera. I have owned many of them as every time i sold of switched back to Canon it was my first purchase. Large and heavy though if that matters to you.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's large nor heavy to be honest - certainly not compared to some L lenses.
 
As others have said - the EF-S 17-55mm is a stunner for a walk about lens. It is worth the price and one you will keep unless you go FF. Other cheaper options include the Tampon (great if you get a good copy) or the EF-S 18-135 ATM (mine lives on a 75D body for video mainly but is a great walkabout for the price).

Good luck

Steve
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Other cheaper options include the Tampon (great if you get a good copy) or the EF-S 18-135 ATM (mine lives on a 75D body for video mainly but is a great walkabout for the price).
Click to expand...

For the price maybe but in a different league quality-wise. The only other EF-S walkabout which stands up to the 17-55 is the 15-85 but we're talking specifically about f/2.8 lenses here :)
 
gothgirl said:
Strange , quite a few revies on DPR , saying it's quite soft and a bit slow to focus .
Click to expand...

Are you sure, it's one of Canon's very well regarded lenses, and possibly their best APS- C lens?
 
Vertigo1 said:
I wouldn't say it's large nor heavy to be honest - certainly not compared to some L lenses.
Click to expand...
Maybe not for a guy and i had no issue with it but that coupled with a 50d it was the equivalent of the OP's 18-55mm attached to a house brick !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top