general purpose lens

petebuster1

petebuster1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
238
Name
peter
Edit My Images
Yes
As i said in another thread ive decided to leave the macro lens till a later date so looking for a general purpose lens and think i'm going for the sigma 17-70mm but was wondering if anyone thinks there's anything better around the same price
 
Worth you researching the Tamron 17-50. I've had both and they each have their pros and cons. I found the Tamron to be that little bit sharper than the Sigma. Price wise there is not much difference.

Photozone do good well balanced reviews.

http://www.photozone.de/
 
I can sympathise with your quandary as I have bought lenses and then sold them on to try something different and to see if I can find better.

You will always find good reviews and bad reviews on all lenses if you do enough research. All lenses even Canon L series can vary from sharp to soft depending upon the actual one you get. Of course if you buy L series the chances of you getting a soft one are reduced.

I have not found a really bad lens BUT in my experience performance does depend on the body you have the lens mounted to. On FF bodies the whole width of the lens glass is used and most lenses are softer at the edges. If you use a cropped body you are using the centre of the glass and this is much sharper.

Over the years I have had two Sigma 17-70 lenses (one OS and one not) and one Tamron 17-50 VC (my son had the Tamron 17-50 non VC). The non OS Sigma was guilty of quite significant back focussing (a common problem) and was returned to the retailer. The OS version was a good all round lens with reasonable semi macro facilities but when compared to the Tamron VC the pictures were softer. I did do some sort of controlled tests taking photos using the same camera (a 7D) mounted on a tripod, with the same aperture etc etc and the Tamron was definitely sharper.

My son was very pleased with his 17-50 but he has now inherited my VC version and he finds it just as good (no better no worse).

In case you are wondering I have now upgraded to a 17-40L.

All of the above lenses (except the back focussing Sigma) produced their share of keepers and all produced their share of duds (but that may be as much my fault as theirs).

From our experience we found the Tamron easier to sell when we wanted to move it on and there certainly seemed more interest in this one than the Sigma. Incidentally there is a Sigma 17-70 for sale on AVForums and it has been up for some while if you are interested.

Whatever you finally decide upon I wish you well with your decision.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that having researched a bit more have decided on the tamron though I prefer the reach of the sigma but would rather the sharper of the 2 so if anyone has one they don't want let me know
 
Now i've decided on the tamron 17-50 i will need something to compliment it with some extra zoom, any suggestions?
 
By extra zoom do you mean focal lenght range or more reach.
Keep in mind extra focal length range may mean a decrease in IQ at the very least.

How much reach do you want and what do you want to use your new lens for?

Lot's of choices in the 70-200 range and the 70-300 range.
Less choices going out to 400mm or 500mm
 
What do you want to use your new lens for, as it may determine the maximum aperture and ammount of reach you need (not want)? Some examples are;
Birding
Wildlife
Sports
Events
Action in low light
Concerts?

I have a number of lens covering this range.
 
Last edited:
mainly wildlife, for the wildlife i'll be shooting will be mainly birds at 20-30ft i wont be needing 500mm
 
petebuster1 said:
mainly wildlife, for the wildlife i'll be shooting will be mainly birds at 20-30ft i wont be needing 500mm
Click to expand...

You will if you're shooting small song/garden birds and are trying to avoid over cropping I'm afraid!
 
For birds I would not go with any thing less than 400mm reach, and if the birds are really in the wild, and not used to people, a lot more like 500mm upwards.
In parks etc for larger birds you may get by with less

Here is why.


Portrait_400 by dicktay2000, on Flickr

1.6 crop camera at 400mm (real) in portrait mode.

and in landscape mode.


Landscape400 by dicktay2000, on Flickr


The above images are not cropped.

From personal experience;
This is a good lens (and I believe its L version even better) especially if weight is a concern and 300mm is long enough.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

and my favourite, and most used, long lens;

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
 
Last edited:
I think 300mm will be enough as its mainly for garden birds so they are not that far away or would i be better going 400mm?
 
Last edited:
Well i just picked up a bargain i bought a sigma 50-200 OS for £87 inc delivery on ebay,it was described in the title as "CAMERA LENS" so what is was could only be seen in the description so it didnt get much attention or bids,dont you just love it when that happens:);) though i know its not rated as a great lens but i think thats dam cheap and it will give me a good idea on what focal range i need beyond 50mm and then can get something better
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top