Canon v third party lenses

W

weirdpie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,
i've just upgraded from a Canon 350d to a Canon 50d but I bought body only. That means at the moment I only have my rubbish old Canon 18-55 kit lens from my 350d. I really need a good general purpose lens to fill in up to my 90-300 as I'm going to use it most of the time. I'd also prefer it to have a big aperture to handle lower lighting easily. I've been looking at the 24-70 f2.8 which gets great reviews and is perfect but wondered if there was a third party lens that would give it a run for its money at a lower budget. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks,
Ian
 
24 - 70mm a good choice but do look at the 24-105. extra reach IS (if you like that sort of thing) and lighter for an all day walkabout.
 
Personally I'd find a starting point of 24mm not wide enough. I'd sell the hum drum kit lens and get a 17/18-50mm f2.8. There are options from Sigma, Tamron and Canon which are probably cheaper than the popular 24-70mm's and they're more compact too.

If you must have a FF compatible lens I think I'd look at the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. It's not wide enough on a crop camera for me but it costs less than the 24-70mm f2.8's and gets good reviews.
 
If your not planning on going full frame anytime soon, Canon 17-55 IS all the way. Its a cracking lens i couldnt fault mine when i had it, 2.8 and IS. (thought id try and beat Hoppy on that point!)
 
The Siggy 17-70mm is well thought of and has lots of fans but it isn't constant f2.8.

I've only tried the non IS version but on that f2.8 disappeared as soon as you so much as thought about moving the zoom ring.

Personally I bought the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. It's compact and light, has a constant f2.8 and is sharp. Sigma do a very similar 18-50mm f2.8. The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS gets good reviews but it's expensive.
 
weirdpie said:
Thanks, thats good advice. I'm looking at this now


Are Sigma lenses good quality?
Click to expand...

yes, very much so. Although i now use a 17-55m f/2.8 is usm, I previously upgraded my 400d kit lens to the sigma 17-70mm instead of the canon 17-85 IS.

keep away from tamron however, having used both sigma and tamron's 17-50 f/2.8's I can say the sigma was hands down the winner. Though it still had nothing on the canon, apart from the price :D
 
Bit harsh I think.

The Sigma / Tamron are lighter and more compact than the Canon and that counts for some people.

Have to also say that although I'm a bit of a Sigma fan most reviews and users tend to say that the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is better than the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and I'd agree with that myself having tried them both before buying the Tamron.
 
Thanks for all the help. It seems that people are saying that:

a) With a Canon lens you get the higher quality that you pay for.
b) Sigma and Tamron both make comparable lenses in the lower price range, some Tamron are better than Sigma and vice versa.

I think its confirmed what I was thinking that I can push my budget and go Canon, but there is a realistic option with a good third party lens.

Does anyone have any advice for/against lens extenders? I've heard mainly negative.
 
Extenders are fine on the right lens, mainly primes e.g. the Canon 300mm 2.8 handles both the 1.4 and 2x quite well (by all accounts as id love to own one!). They will change your aperture values though effectively making the lens slower. And you may lose AF as well depending on the camera you have and the lens extender combo.
 
I would recommend the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 if you can afford it, otherwise the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.
 
I vote for the Sigma 17-70mm, had it, loved it... Changed it for a Canon 17-85mm and think the Sigma was better image quality wise.
 
Euan said:
If your not planning on going full frame anytime soon, Canon 17-55 IS all the way. Its a cracking lens i couldnt fault mine when i had it, 2.8 and IS.
Click to expand...

I don't shoot canon, but from what I've heard (and if it's anything like the Nikon version I used to have) you will not be disappointed at all with the 17-55 :)
 
Last edited:
Another resounding recommendation for the Canon 17-55 IS USM.

It is expensive but holds it's value tremendously well so if you do move to FF at some point in the future you will lose very little on it, there is always strong demand for second hand ones too.

Buy for the now, not what you might do later.
 
I've been thinking of the 17-55mm myself. It gets excellent reviews, but I've handled one and the build quality isn't quite what I'd expect for the price. No hood either. I haven't decided, and may well buy one, but can't help thinking its a bit of a rip off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top