Canon fit f2.8 lenses

J

jonnybloo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
288
Edit My Images
No
I am setting myself a goal to save some pennies and get myself a new lens and was wondering if I could gather some opinions on here. I’ve read some other similar posts and have some vague ideas of what I’m looking for.

I have a Canon 550d, the standard 18-55 Kit lens, 50mm 1.8.

I mainly take portrait shots, mostly of my little nipper as a hobby rather than any professional use.

I like the 50mm, and for the money is a great little lens to play with however In an ideal world I want some zoom as I’m often having to crop tightly using the 50mm (especially indoors), as well as the fixed aperture and hopefully a lot more sharpness and clarity than the kit lens offers. I want to be able to push what I can achieve through the camera.

All that said, I realise the biggest influence is cost! So I’m looking at the 3rd party lenses too and want to know peoples experiences and comparisons between them. I don’t have the cash now and will take a good while to save for it, ideally I would like to get one that retains the value as good as possible, so worse case scenario if I ever needed too I could sell it on. If it’s a case of the most expensive is by far the best (i.e. the Canon) then thats fair enough, I would rather take a bit longer to save than pay a lot of money for something that isn’t anywhere near as good.

Like I say, I need a balance of cost, sharpness, fixed aperture, quality, zoom, fast in low light, sell on value

The 4 I am looking at currently, but I’m open to suggestions are:

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC – Costs around £340
Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM – Costs around £475
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM – Costs around £710
Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM – Costs around £739
**edit** Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM - Costs around £520


All the above I assume cover low light, speed as they have IS/OS/VC, they all have the fixed aperture, I would be interested to hear how people would rate them on a cropped sensor, also as the lens is indoor/walk about lens would the 24-105 be too much at 24mm or is negligible

Any advice appreciated. As much as I love the look of so many lenses I think this may be a one off purchase, something I only ever upgrade rather than add too, so I just want to make sure I get it spot on first time round!

jonny
 
Last edited:
I think there is a fairbit of difference between 17 and 24 which I suppose there would be as it is almost 50% more so while 7mm doesn't sound like much it actually is.
 
Thanks ernesto, i have just read a couple of things that would suggest the same. I think the extra focal range is just tempting.

Just to amend that lens list slightly, i keep seeing posts talking about the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM, despite it not having the fixed aperture would that also be a good option?

Which is the sharpest/fastest, are the 17-50 soft at 2.8, so realistically the 15-85 would be as good?
 
Personally I wouldn't have gone for a 24-xxx f4 full frame zoom on APS-C for reasons of aperture, starting focal length and packaging. When I had APS-C I went for a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, non VC model because VC wasn't available at the time :D

I can't remember if that was before the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 came out but I wouldn't have chosen that lens anyway not because of cost but because of size and weight. Personally I'd accept a small drop in performance (even if there was one with the Tamron lens) for significant packaging advantages. I was happy with the Tamron even at f2.8. I'd say that that Tamron lens was the sharpest zoom I've ever owned, so much so that portrait shots were a bit of a problem :)
 
Last edited:
I'd recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC. They are very sharp and a very good price
 
cheers Mike / Woof Woof – I think the difference in price always make me wonder what the difference in quality is so it’s nice to hear you vouch for it. I have checked several reviews, but I always get that feeling with reviews that you could pay £5k and still not get a good one, they always seem to focus on the bad points! That’s why I prefer people’s opinions.

Mike, I don’t have the steadiest of hands and do use indoors/low light, so I suppose the VC version may be better for me. Is there any other differences in the lenses i.e. does adding VC give you a reduction in anything else? Excuse my ignorance too but I always presumed VC allows faster shutter speed as its the equivalent of a few stops down, is that actually the case or is my reasoning wrong ?!
 
jonnybloo said:
cheers Mike / Woof Woof – I think the difference in price always make me wonder what the difference in quality is so it’s nice to hear you vouch for it. I have checked several reviews, but I always get that feeling with reviews that you could pay £5k and still not get a good one, they always seem to focus on the bad points! That’s why I prefer people’s opinions.

Mike, I don’t have the steadiest of hands and do use indoors/low light, so I suppose the VC version may be better for me. Is there any other differences in the lenses i.e. does adding VC give you a reduction in anything else? Excuse my ignorance too but I always presumed VC allows faster shutter speed as its the equivalent of a few stops down, is that actually the case or is my reasoning wrong ?!
Click to expand...

It actually allows a slower shutter speed to he used, as the IS/VC/OS keeps the frame a lot steadier as it eliminates most normal camera shake.

Useful for static subjects and panning. As it doesnt allow for a faster shutter speed it won't help much for moving objects.
 
Last edited:
I had a Tamron 17 - 50 (non VC as on Sony). Agree with the previous comments, mine was very sharp and had a nice enough build quality for me (but I don't buy £1000 lenses so can't make comparisons to any higher end lens, mine was a used on and cost me £160)
 
Last edited:
jonnybloo said:
Thanks for clarifying Jim
Click to expand...


No worries, welcome to TP!
 
Just to add to this, i spent a while last night going through various comparisons and reviews, i read quite a few that said these lenses are very soft at 2.8 so usually you would step it up. That made me wonder, whats the advantage of these over the kit lens if you tend to not use 2.8?

How do they compare against the kit lens? A few reviews said the kit lens is just as sharp and in certain focal ranges / aperture it is quicker. It actually got better reviews than i realised. Am i being naive and making assumptions that im actually upgrading at all?

Pixel peeper and such websites are pretty good for looking at examples but they dont take into account skill level, camera, processing etc, so without actually testing all of these its difficult to say what gain i would get over the kit lens for £350-750 which will take some serious saving.

Any thoughts ?
 
Generally they are very sharp wide open, especially the Canon 17-55.

It's not just about aperture though, the iq of these lenses is way about that of kit lenses.
 
Sigma 17-50 image quality is top notch, up there with Leica lenses I have owned. It is supposed to compare favourably with the Canon although I have not owned the latter. Pity it wouldn't autofocus.
 
Just to bump and update this thread. I looked at the tamron 17-50 non vc today and was impressed especially for the price. I'm very tempted, the only thing holding me back is I think I want that extra reach without compromising on the speed. So I've been Trying to assess the 24-70 range lens but it seems theyare out of my budget i.e canon 24-70 2.8 and the new tamron 24-70 which looks amazing.

Can anyone recommend any alternatives? I've looked at the sigma and the reviews don't seem to favourable for the extra costs compared to the tamron 17-50. I do like the look of the tamron 28-75 but again its losing a bit of the at 28mm

basically I'm almost sold on the tamron 17-50 but I could/want be swayed on one as sharp and fast with extra reach

Any experience or recommendations
 
Have you considered the Tamron 28-75 f2.8?

I use one on a Canon 5D mk2 and find it hard to fault. It has only recently been relegated off the body since purchasing a Canon 50mm f1.2

Rob
 
I noticed you mentioned needing to crop images you shot with the 50mm F1.8, no one seems to have taken that into account and whilst either the tamron 17-50 or the canon 17-55 are cracking lenses, they aren't going to help with the extra reach you need.

So we come down really to a choice between the 15-85 which is quite a slow lens at F5.6 when fully zoomed and the IS isn't going to make much difference when trying to target a moving youngster, or the 24-105 L F4.

Oddly my money is on the latter, I think for portraits even on a crop sensor its the best choice, the zoom range covers everything from standard to short telephoto and the F4 aperture is reasonably fast, added to which this lens is supposed to be pretty sharp wide open.

Lets face it your more likely to want the wide end of things outside so could use your standard zoom for now if you needed a wider shot, the 24-105 would cover the rest and indoors.

I shoot a fair few portraits of family and friends, indoors in low light and my most used focal length on my 500D is 85mm, from 6ft it gives me a perfect head and shoulders/upper body shot with an adult, full body with a small child.
I usually shoot between F2 - F4 with mine (85mm F1.8) and have also found no issues with pushing the ISO when needed as if the shot is framed and exposed correctly you don't have to crop, image noise isn't that much of an issue at even ISO 3200, a little cleaning up of it in post processing sorts any issue with it.

The 17-50 is a great lens, but as said my only concern is that you will still have to crop your images and thus it wont solve the larger of the problems you had in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the updates
Rob, yeah I have been looking at the 28-75 today, seems to review well so hopefully a few people have experience with it and can vouch for speed and Sharpness

Ian, I think your right about the range I'm looking for. I did look at the 24-105 originally but wasn't sure if I would be paying a premium just for the L glass which isn't necessary for me at this time. I also wasn't sure how the f4 aperture performed in terms of low light against the 2.8's with smaller range's like the one above.

If money was no object I would go for the canon 24-70 2.8 or new tamron of the same range, unfortunately money does count, damn it :(
 
I too was in the same boat wanting to take picture of my little lad. Have a 550D and wanted to upgrade from the kit lens. I umm'd and arrr'd and eventually went with the Sigma 17-50. Read great reviews about the Canon but could'nt justify the price.
Other people I talked to always recommended the Sigma brand so that swung it for me

The Sigma has been good so far, never really off my camera and takes some good photos, though I need more time to learn how to exploit it's full potential.
Went with this because mainly for the 2.8 apperture. Photos on the kit lens tended to be a bit dark and though I have a flash, when it goes off my son gets distracted by it so loose the moment. Few points I would say about the Sigma:
- It's big compared to the kit lens and I find a battery grip on all the time to make the camera fell a bit more balanced
- With the hood up you can't use the onboard flash as it shades most people close up.
- With the Sigma you get a case and hood which are extras on any non Canon L lenses so figure that into your price.

If it's the focal length you want then my mate also with a 550D went for the Canon EF-S Zoom lens - 18 mm-200 mm - F/3.5-5.6. He's not into photography in a big way and he loves the long reach of it so he's never had it off his camera.
 
Thanks Andy

Do you find with 17-50 you get close enough to and have enough range to get shots of your lad? Do you take a lot of crops/close up shots?
 
My lad is under 2 so he doesn't tend to wander far and I can generally keep up with him so I've not found it an issue. It's fine for close ups and you can get a nice background blur and within the house it's fine so not cropping anything. I have the 55-250mm for outside but rarely use it.
Basically the Sigma has the range of the kit lens so if you are not getting the range with that then may be consider something else.
 
Just an update,

I borrowed a friends new Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC. A lot quicker and sharper than my kit lens however i found it really soft up until about f5.6-8

Is this normal?

I thought it may have been because the subject was my 1 year old that doesnt stop still, so not one shot was focused on the eye. I realise this can be tricky at 2.8 too as the margin for error with the focus is a lot greater. I also tested on a non moving subject and again found especially at 2.8 it was very soft. Manual focus has also been tested to rule out an AF issue

I did look on the lens reviews on some of the review sites, and it seems this is generally how most lens work, you have to stop down once or twice to get best results, aprt from maybe on primes it seems.

My question is whats the advantage of having a 2.8 fixed aperture lens if the results arent sharp so your likely to step down anyway?

Does everyone else find the Tamron to be soft at 2.8 ?

Thanks
 
15-85 would be my choice. Great reviews. 17-50 Tam is a mixed bag.
 
I had the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS when I had a Canon 30D, lovely lens...
 
Have a look at the new little 40mm f2.8 that cannon is selling with there 650D. Nice and sharp

LLS
 
jonnybloo said:
Just to add to this, i spent a while last night going through various comparisons and reviews, i read quite a few that said these lenses are very soft at 2.8 so usually you would step it up. That made me wonder, whats the advantage of these over the kit lens if you tend to not use 2.8?

How do they compare against the kit lens? A few reviews said the kit lens is just as sharp and in certain focal ranges / aperture it is quicker. It actually got better reviews than i realised. Am i being naive and making assumptions that im actually upgrading at all?

Pixel peeper and such websites are pretty good for looking at examples but they dont take into account skill level, camera, processing etc, so without actually testing all of these its difficult to say what gain i would get over the kit lens for £350-750 which will take some serious saving.

Any thoughts ?
Click to expand...

Although I happily use good quality lenses wide open, it's a fact that they're sharper stopped down.

But that's true for all lenses - if you're going to be that picky about sharpness - would you rather have a lens that sharp at F4 or F8?

In reality - the Canon 17-55 is probably sharper at 55 f2.8 than the kit lens is at 55 f8;)

The benefit for me of the Canon 2.8 over the 3rd party lenses is the focus motor. For me a lens that focuses in the near dark accurately and quickly is worth every penny. The focus is instant in normal lighting.
 
samems said:
Got to save up for the 15-85. Really like this lens
Click to expand...

you just missed one in the classifieds ......... I bought it :thumbs: and its a cracking piece of kit. Just have to get out tomorrow and give it a run out :lol:
 
I would go 24-105mm its a great lens on a crop camera the IS works well and you get a great focal length.

If you want wide i would get a 10-22mm later on.

I had a 17-55 f2.8 is canon on a 7D this replaced a 24-105 f4 was not happy with it just never had the reach.

Also as you get at the wider end you can use smaller f stop and retain sharp easier so if you crop in a fair bit why not go long in the first place.

If you don't mind a prime what about the canon 85mm f1.8 may do the job.

Good luck
 
Thankyou everyone for all the advice and

after much deliberation I'm still not at a decision ha

Every time I think I've cracked it I read negative reviews or the lens just doesn't fully fit what I want. Especially with 3rd party lenses there are so many negative stories out there.

Ok so here's my thinking at the moment,its theory as I'm not sure whether the spend can be justified yet for what is a hobby for me.credit card over 18-24 months, budget of say 900.I'm not really a spender I tend to save first but my justification is my little one will be 3 by then so why wait.

I need to make sure I cover my requirements as much as possible as it well be a long time before I buy anything again.so other than the little one I tend to take general photos rather than any particular preference on any genre.

So I still think a nice general short range, preferably 2.8 for indoor shots and I keep leaning towards the sigma hsm 24-70, there are a mixture of positive and negative reviewed so I might have to take a flyer on it.it has the reach over the 50/55's , faster aperture and dof for portraits, hopefully its sharp, it would def be a significant upgrade for me anyway, its wide enough for me too. Sigma and the older version of this lens seem to get quite a bit of grief so hopefully I wouldn't fall into this category. It would be better if I could find thus for less than the 600 it generally seems to go for as that leads me nicely on to part 2.

F or the rest of the budget I could go for the 1.8 85mm or ideally the canon macro 100mm 2.8 which looks fantastic. I used to love macro photos on my old bridge camera and it means I have an alternative on grim British days! Outdoors it looks like its good for portraits too.a definite indulgence on this one.

The others I have edged towards are the canon 24-105 which kind of covers the 2 above without macro though,I think the 2 above may give me that little extra, and also the canon 70-200 f 4 which looks fantastic value but I don't think I could justify the usage as I take more indoors

They are my current thoughts, not sure it can be done within budget though without buying Ebay or grey imports which I would prefer not to do especially with the sigma as it sounds like the warranty is often required on them!

Apologies for the long winded post, its surprisingly hard to pick the right lens!
Thanks again everyone, any further thoughts on these lens appreciated
 
Without having time to read the whole thread i see you take portrait shots ?? if you want something f2.8 the canon 100mm macro f2.8 is a great lens for portraits, its not just for macro shots.
You could try looking at flickr groups for each lens you want and see what they are coming out with perhaps
 
4737carlin said:
Without having time to read the whole thread i see you take portrait shots ?? if you want something f2.8 the canon 100mm macro f2.8 is a great lens for portraits, its not just for macro shots.
You could try looking at flickr groups for each lens you want and see what they are coming out with perhaps
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's how I came about that lens and it looks superb, give s me portraits as well as macro, some of the shots on Flickr using it are stunning. It may be a little long on my crop but that just rules out indoor portrait. Hopefully getting the right short zoom will cover that anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top