Looking for wide angle at f2.8 at least!

Peach

Peach

Suspended / Banned
Messages
294
Name
Sharleigh
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey

Looking for a wide angled lens as a walkabout but also has to perform well in low light. Hence the f2.8

Ideally I'd go with the 16-35 or 17-55 ....but just wanting advice on something that may be a cheaper option?

However I do not want to compromise on a third party lens. But will buy second hand Canon.

What are your thoughts??
Thanks
 
Hmm now I'm thinking a fast prime??.. 24mm or 28mm.

I'll never be happy... like most of us I guess!
 
well if you have a steady hand and use the principle of 1/focal length for shutter speed then the 10-22mm USM can theoretically be handheld down to 1/10s. Obvioulsy for static enviroment only.
 
Peach said:
I just can't buy cheap cheap! I just can't!! lol
Click to expand...

your money lol.... the non vc (IS) version - about £200 - of this earns 90% my wages though....
 
Some excellent lenses...

20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, all from Sigma :) No compromise required. A good zoom is the often recommended 17-50 f2.8, from Tamron. Again no compromise in optical quality is required :)
 
I would probably buy a second hand Canon 17-55 over a Tamron.
The compromise is the build quality. I'm probably just being a massive snob.
 
18-270 said:
I'm the worst lens snob I know but even I have to say that Tamron lens is a peach! :wave:
Click to expand...

But if you could afford the extra cash for the Canon, you'd spend it right??

I don't have a specific budget but I'll try to save money if its needed.
 
Peach said:
The compromise is the build quality.
Click to expand...

indeed....but I could buy 3 tamrons for the price of one nikon 17-55, and I haven't managed to break 1 yet...try my best though.
 
Peach said:
The compromise is the build quality. I'm probably just being a massive snob.
Click to expand...

Not all 3rd party companies are badly made, and even if they do sigma for example have a far better customer service than canon.

Dont write off glass because it doesnt have a red ring or big canon end cap on it.
 
fastworldimages said:
Not all 3rd party companies are badly made, and even if they do sigma for example have a far better customer service than canon.

Dont write off glass because it doesnt have a red ring or big canon end cap on it.
Click to expand...

I am no way saying these lens' are badly made... as you guys wouldn't be raving about them in the first place.
 
I use a 17-35L on my 1D, first one was soft below 24mm (some are) Current one is razor sharp even at 2.8.
 
My sigma 10-20 cried after reading this thread.
 
Peach said:
I just can't buy cheap cheap! I just can't!! lol
Click to expand...

lol you need Canon 5D mk2 with 24-70mm f/2.8 L then. Why do you want to compromise if you don't want cheap? Oh wait, 1Ds mk3 is better still.
 
Peach said:
I would probably buy a second hand Canon 17-55 over a Tamron.
The compromise is the build quality. I'm probably just being a massive snob.
Click to expand...

Not always, for example wide angle wise in the Canon scope the Canon 10-22 is third best built lens in that area, behind the Tokina 11-16 and 12-24. They also have arguably better IQ, yet they are cheaper. (The 11-16 is widely regarded as the best wide angle lens in Canon fit). I agree though, build quality is still quite important and i wouldn't buy a badly built lens, problem is just because it's Canon doesn't mean it's well built.

Peach said:
But if you could afford the extra cash for the Canon, you'd spend it right??

I don't have a specific budget but I'll try to save money if its needed.
Click to expand...

Not if a third party lens was better. Having said that if money wasn't a major issue I would go for the 17-55 IS every time, over the Tamron 17-50, mostly due to the almost certainly better focus speed.

As I said earlier however if I was thinking about a wide angle lens (17mm isn't wide on a crop sensor) I would probably pick the cheaper Tokinas over the Canon every time, unless I needed the range of the Canon).
 
18-270 said:
I had to endure that pain once, then I bought it and it's no worries now except for one small detail.


Now I have to buy a D3s because I need a full frame to go with my lenses! :bang:
Click to expand...



Do it! You wont ever want to put it down. ;)


Kev.
 
I'm the worst lens snob I know but even I have to say that Tamron lens is a peach!
I would agree with this. I use one as a walk about with some really good results.
 
No sure what a good price for the IS version is, the non-IS can be had for just over £300 in Jacobs though!

Chris
 
Amp34 said:
Not always, for example wide angle wise in the Canon scope the Canon 10-22 is third best built lens in that area, behind the Tokina 11-16 and 12-24. They also have arguably better IQ, yet they are cheaper. (The 11-16 is widely regarded as the best wide angle lens in Canon fit). I agree though, build quality is still quite important and i wouldn't buy a badly built lens, problem is just because it's Canon doesn't mean it's well built.
Click to expand...

The Sigma 10-20 is also very well built. I don't have anything to compare it to, but it's quite heavy for its size, very smooth focus/zoom rings, great IQ, very little barrel distortion and no noticeable CA. It feels solid in my hand. It is nice and sharp at f/8, and acceptable at f/4. Vignetting is quite bad at the extreme wide end, but hardly noticeable for most practical uses. I've taken photographs of newspapers with it and easily be able to read all the text when zoomed in. The fact that it is slow (f/4 - 5.6) isn't as much of a problem as people like to make out, as you can hand hold at silly slow shutter speeds, like 1/10, and get a perfectly usable shot.

I took the following picture handheld for 1 second in near darkness (yes, 1 second handheld) and while it is not pin sharp of course, there is no discernable blurring.

Chimneyguardhutandpumpingstation.jpg


I am no doubt biased but I think it's a great lens for the money, a really great performer.

I'd love to get my hands on an 11-16 Tokina to see what all the fuss is about, but the lack of range puts me off. I do wish my Sigma had a bit more on the long end as well; the tokina is almost a prime...
 
Peach said:
Okay so I guess the sensible option is the Tamron, after a lot of research and some nagging off my partner. I have made my mind up.

So.... Is this a reasonable price?

http://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Tamron_17-50_mm_SP_AF_F2.8_VC_XR_Di_ll_LD_Aspherical

thanks!
Click to expand...

chris321 said:
No sure what a good price for the IS version is, the non-IS can be had for just over £300 in Jacobs though!

Chris
Click to expand...

With the emphisis on "walkabout" I'd stick with IS ;) and that's an awsome price not even sure how they are doing that? I know how much retailers pay for the lens... :thinking:

Is that guaranteed UK stock?
 
18-270 said:
With the emphisis on "walkabout" I'd stick with IS ;) and that's an awsome price not even sure how they are doing that? I know how much retailers pay for the lens... :thinking:

Is that guaranteed UK stock?
Click to expand...

I bought a crumpler bag from Cliftons last month. Posted next day and really good service.

Enquired by email today about stock so I guess they'll get back to me Monday at some point.
Delivery is only £4.95 so yeah it's pretty cheap.

Plus with nearly a £400 saving over the Canon.... I can buy another lens!

This does get addictive!
 
i picked my one up from jessops today
price matched at 405-00 for the vc version
cant wait to try it out properly
 
IS for a 17-50 isn't that nessecary so i'd save money and get the non I.S
 
Perhaps Jessops

Thats just a wild guess though...
 
trencheel303 said:
The Sigma 10-20 is also very well built. I don't have anything to compare it to, but it's quite heavy for its size, very smooth focus/zoom rings, great IQ, very little barrel distortion and no noticeable CA. It feels solid in my hand. It is nice and sharp at f/8, and acceptable at f/4. Vignetting is quite bad at the extreme wide end, but hardly noticeable for most practical uses. I've taken photographs of newspapers with it and easily be able to read all the text when zoomed in. The fact that it is slow (f/4 - 5.6) isn't as much of a problem as people like to make out, as you can hand hold at silly slow shutter speeds, like 1/10, and get a perfectly usable shot.

I took the following picture handheld for 1 second in near darkness (yes, 1 second handheld) and while it is not pin sharp of course, there is no discernable blurring.

Chimneyguardhutandpumpingstation.jpg


I am no doubt biased but I think it's a great lens for the money, a really great performer.

I'd love to get my hands on an 11-16 Tokina to see what all the fuss is about, but the lack of range puts me off. I do wish my Sigma had a bit more on the long end as well; the tokina is almost a prime...
Click to expand...



There is nothing majorly wrong with the 10-20s build quality, or IQ but it's not quite up there with the Tokina 12-24 and 11-16. I tried both the 12-24 and 10-20 at the same time and in Canon build quality terms the Tokina is L lens build quality whereas the Sigma is reasonable non L class (thinking 17-55 or 70-300 IS here). Compared to the 12-24 my Sigma 24-70 is decidedly average BQ wise for example. It's also actually lighter than the two Tokinas (which is a plus point).

Aperture speed, well that depends on what you need it for, for average shots then yeah it's fine but when you need as fast an aperture as possible then the 11-16 wins every time. You could ask people why they go for a 50mm f/1.2 instead of a 1.4 or the 1.4 instead of the 1.8, it's the same reason. :)

I have to laugh at the claim there is little barrel distortion though, it's one of the reasons some people buy the damn lens. :lol:

Anyway this is a bit off topic and TBH i'm not sure why you brought it up.
 
18-270 said:
With the emphisis on "walkabout" I'd stick with IS ;) and that's an awsome price not even sure how they are doing that? I know how much retailers pay for the lens... :thinking:

Is that guaranteed UK stock?
Click to expand...

Apparently the non VR is actually a better overall lens though, the IQ of the VR version is noticeably worse according to the reviews. It depends how much of a pixel peeker you are as to whether the loss (and extra price) is worth the added VR.

For me I'd suggest no (having looked into swapping my 24-70 for one).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top