New start

[mjb123]

Ok so my tamron 18-270 is up for sale so I'm starting from scratch I think I tried to run before I could walk anyway I sold my kit lens a while ago so will be len's less!!

So canon 450d what lens would you get as a new start I was thinking sigma 17-70 f2.8 just want a good all rounder!
When I look at the pictures I took with my kit lens they were pretty much all crisp and clear when I trawl through my tampon pictures it's scary as to how bad the pictures were!

 

[EspressoJunkie]

when I trawl through my tampon pictures it's scary as to how bad the pictures were!

Far be it from me to question anyone's preferred subject matter.....!!!

Lol typo much?

Oh and I'd highly recommended a Tamron 17-50 2.8. Hard to beat the image quality for the price.

 

[mata.morrison]

I myself still have my 18-55is kit lens. Along with it have the 50mm 1.8 which is just a great lens, I think for the price everyone should have one in there bag.

As above though if I was to upgrade my kit lens I too would get the tamron 2.8 non vc as that's what everyone says has better overall quality.

 

[mjb123]

Yes i've looked into this lens as other threads have gone down same route, I read a review of the non vc version against the sigma version and the outcome was the tamron was best overall except the autofocus was utter tosh!!!

 

[cotty332000]

I have the Tamron F2.8 and for the money you can't go wrong!
Non VC version I must add.

 

[mjb123]

I believe my 450d has image stabilisation built in so the lack of the vc shouldn't matter should it as long as I keep a fairly steady hand!!

 

[tijuana taxi]

Afraid it doesn't have IS built in, none of the Canon range do

 

[woof woof]

So canon 450d what lens would you get as a new start I was thinking sigma 17-70 f2.8 just want a good all rounder!

I don't think there is a 17-70mm f2.8 is there? I think it's f2.8-f4 and I think it's only f2.8 until the thought of moving the zoom ring away from 17mm begins to cross your mind.

I think that a quality lens in the 17-50mm (constant) f2.8 range from Tamron, Sigma or Canon would be a better bet. They have a shorter zoom but sometimes less is more

 

[mjb123]

Cheers people so I'll get back to basics then with a 17-50 more than likely tamron more in my budget if I can get £250 for my 18-270!

 

[jon ryan]

What sort of budget are you on? If you can stretch to a Canon 17-40 L, that's probably the best lens in this range for the money.

 

[woof woof]

A 17-40mm f4 when he could have a 17-50mm f2.8?

 

[jon ryan]

Ummm, `L` lens vs Tamron? Not a very close contest in my book.

 

[woof woof]

Right, the Tammy is sharper, has a longer range and a wider aperture. People who've used both (as I have) would probably agree.

The 17-40mm f4 was designed as a wide angle lens for full frame so it's hardly surprising that it gets humbled by a more modern constant f2.8 aperture lens designed for APS-C. And there's always the Siggy 18-50mm f2.8 or canon 17-55mm f2.8.

PS. Take the "L" off the Canon and leave everything alse the same and would we even be having this discussion? I think not

 

[jon ryan]

My 17-40 is now 8 years old, still as sharp as the day I bought it despite a helluva lot of use (I'm a press photographer). It gets used on crop and FF bodies. And I could sell it for more than I paid. Where is your evidence that the Tammy is sharper? And what's this `it was designed for full frame` bit? It came out in 2003 when FF cameras were thin on the ground. Oh, and it's weather sealed as well.

Right, your go.

 

[andyred]

When I look at the pictures I took with my kit lens they were pretty much all crisp and clear !

I presume your kit lens was the 18-55IS - obviously if you were happy with the results you got, this is an option.

The tamron 17-50 gets very good right up's on here - I'm going to have a look at one down at Focus

when I trawl through my tampon pictures it's scary as to how bad the pictures were!

Thats just wrong

 

[andyred]

I believe my 450d has image stabilisation built in so the lack of the vc shouldn't matter should it as long as I keep a fairly steady hand!!

Hi

No none of the Canon (or Nikon) range have in built IS...

It's in the lenses unfortunately...

 

[mjb123]

Yeh that was a misread on my part!
Any takers for the tokina 16-50 f2.8?

 

[squishy]

My 17-40 is now 8 years old, still as sharp as the day I bought it despite a helluva lot of use (I'm a press photographer). It gets used on crop and FF bodies. And I could sell it for more than I paid. Where is your evidence that the Tammy is sharper? And what's this `it was designed for full frame` bit? It came out in 2003 when FF cameras were thin on the ground. Oh, and it's weather sealed as well.

Right, your go.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Have a look through, the tamron 17-50 in marginally better at every aperture.

No one is questioning that the 17-40 is a good lens, but is designed as an UWA for full frame not as a wide/normal zoom for crop bodies and so there are better options on crop bodies (unless weather sealing is required, but given that the OP is using a 450D it's safe to assume this is not of concern ).

 

[DoctorBob]

My 17-40 is now 8 years old, still as sharp as the day I bought it despite a helluva lot of use (I'm a press photographer). It gets used on crop and FF bodies. And I could sell it for more than I paid. Where is your evidence that the Tammy is sharper? And what's this `it was designed for full frame` bit? It came out in 2003 when FF cameras were thin on the ground. Oh, and it's weather sealed as well.

Right, your go.

The 17-40 is more expensive, designed for FF since it works with full frame cameras, otherwise it would be e.g. designed for APS-C (which is not a downside but I'm confused at why you're even disputing this), a stop slower and a smaller zoom range. IQ has been covered by squishy. So you gain weather sealing (well actually you don't since the 450D is not weather sealed).

Wait, what was the advantage again?

 

[mjb123]

Yeh that was a misread on my part!
Any takers for the tokina 16-50 f2.8?

I think this may of got lost in and amongst the storm of the weather sealed lens!!

 

[jon ryan]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Have a look through, the tamron 17-50 in marginally better at every aperture.

Hang on to the word `marginally`.

The 17-40 is more expensive, designed for FF since it works with full frame cameras, otherwise it would be e.g. designed for APS-C (which is not a downside but I'm confused at why you're even disputing this), a stop slower and a smaller zoom range. IQ has been covered by squishy. So you gain weather sealing (well actually you don't since the 450D is not weather sealed).

Wait, what was the advantage again?

You'll have to explain this `designed for FF` thing. What does this mean? The 17-40 came out before FF cameras were widely available. Standard EF lenses will work on both crop and full frame bodies. It's the EF-S fittings that only work with one and not the other.

IQ is just one aspect of a lens. The most important one, sure, but considerations such as ease of use, speed and accuracy of focus, build quality and retention of value are also important. And the differences in IQ on these two are negligible (or marginal if you prefer).

The `marginal` advantage of the Tamron was anyway obtained under test conditions, not real life, and is being observed on a screen. But, how does it do at night in a barn full of drunk Conservatives? (where mine was on Saturday!) Can it deal with driving rain at a marathon? How about when shooting coastal storms? Will it still be taking pin-sharp photos well over 100,000 shots down the line? And will it now be worth more than paid for?

Was the lens clean? How is the camera set up? How skilled is the user? All these have to be taken into account for a fair comparison.

Cherry-picking one aspect but ignoring others is a bit like claiming a Skoda is better than a Ferrari because it has carpets, the heater works better, and you can hear the stereo at 60MPH.

Still, in the end it's down to personal preference. Why not ask the next ten professional photographers you meet how many `L` series lenses they have, and how many Tamrons are in their bags.

(Although it may take a while. I don't think I've ever met a pro who uses a Tamron 17-50. Odd, that...)

 

[squishy]

Well we have at least proved the point that it can at the very least match the 17-40 for image quality. And it's faster. And it's cheaper. And it has a slightly wider range.
So given that the OP is an amateur enthusiast using a 450D, not a pro who needs top build quality and weather sealing, what are the real advantages of the 17-40 in this case?

 

[jon ryan]

Well we have at least proved the point that it can at the very least match the 17-40 for image quality. And it's faster. And it's cheaper. And it has a slightly wider range.
So given that the OP is an amateur enthusiast using a 450D, not a pro who needs top build quality and weather sealing, what are the real advantages of the 17-40 in this case?

So you've come down to `can at least match`, and accepted that the `L` lens may, just, perhpaps, be better in some areas of performance?

Faster, yes. f/2.8 can be useful. But modern cameras are getting better at dealing with high ISO, so f/4 will often do the trick (unless you're in need of narrow dof). But where are the test figures from use in poor light (where the f/2.8 would come into its own)? How does the focus lock do in comparison with the Canon? And how does it do on focus speed and zoom action?

As for price, yes, on purchase it is cheaper. But it will loose value faster and is unlikely to last as long. I doubt very much that it would last long in my work, so any saving here is a false economy.

Yes, for someone who can only afford a cheap lens, a cheap lens it has to be. But please don't say it's a better lens. For comparisons to be credible, all aspects must be considered. Cheap lenses can be outstanding - I have a `nifty fifty` which is stunningly brilliant for what it is. But basically it's a kit lens, with kit lens build.

 

[andyred]

Yeh that was a misread on my part!
Any takers for the tokina 16-50 f2.8?

Sorry no experience of this lens...

Can you get to Focus ? You could possibly try them out for yourself there ??

 

[squishy]

So you've come down to `can at least match`, and accepted that the `L` lens may, just, perhpaps, be better in some areas of performance?

Faster, yes. f/2.8 can be useful. But modern cameras are getting better at dealing with high ISO, so f/4 will often do the trick (unless you're in need of narrow dof). But where are the test figures from use in poor light (where the f/2.8 would come into its own)? How does the focus lock do in comparison with the Canon? And how does it do on focus speed and zoom action?

As for price, yes, on purchase it is cheaper. But it will loose value faster and is unlikely to last as long. I doubt very much that it would last long in my work, so any saving here is a false economy.

Yes, for someone who can only afford a cheap lens, a cheap lens it has to be. But please don't say it's a better lens. For comparisons to be credible, all aspects must be considered. Cheap lenses can be outstanding - I have a `nifty fifty` which is stunningly brilliant for what it is. But basically it's a kit lens, with kit lens build.

If you'll read my earlier posts, I never diminished the 17-40, only said that the 17-50 f/2.8 would most likely be better suited in this case.

Sure the 17-40 will take more intensive professional photography easier and probably last longer, but the OP is evidently not doing this kind of shooting. And actually, good condition tamron 17-50's seem to hold their value surprisingly well due to high demand. And with the price difference you could buy TWO tamrons for the price of a 17-40, so you'd have to seriously and repeatedly mistreat it for repairs to make it more expensive. If you're going into the 17-40 price range there are even more lenses to consider as well such as the also excellent canon 15-85.

So yes, for THIS use (which is all I've ever been talking about), I think the 17-50 is a better lens than the 17-40.

 

[wildman]

I believe my 450d has image stabilisation built in so the lack of the vc shouldn't matter should it as long as I keep a fairly steady hand!!

I am not sure that is true, I thought only the Sony Alphas has in body stabilisation in the form of their super steady shot system which moves the sensor around to compensate.

Nikkon and Canon have theirs built into the lenses so unless you have rock steady hands VR for canon/nikon might be needed unless its all tripod work and then who cares ?

 

[jon ryan]

Where are you getting your evidence of what the OP shoots? He only mentions one subject, and I sincerely hope this is a typo!

He does, however, mention hearing that " the autofocus was utter tosh!!!" on the Tamron (post #4). Would you say this is a strike against the Tamron? It hardly matters how good the IQ is if the thing won't focus properly. And I'd want to know how it behaves in low light before buying. Any info on this?

And can you please explain what you mean by saying a couple of times that the Canon was designed for FF as I really don't understand this! Mine seems to give outstanding results whether on a venerable 400D or a new 5D2.

 

[Ricky]

To me, if you would ever move to full frame then 17-40 is the lens for you, if you will be staying in APS-C crop sensor then 100% go for 17-55 2.8 IS.

Only downside it's famous for sucking in dust! so check before buying a used one.

 

[jon ryan]

To me, if you would ever move to full frame then 17-40 is the lens for you, if you will be staying in APS-C crop sensor then 100% go for 17-55 2.8 IS.

Only downside it's famous for sucking in dust! so check before buying a used one.

OK, can you tell me what's wrong with using a 17-40 L on a cropper, Ricky? Can anyone? As I've said, mine works fine on any body it fits.

 

[squishy]

Where are you getting your evidence of what the OP shoots? He only mentions one subject, and I sincerely hope this is a typo!

He does, however, mention hearing that " the autofocus was utter tosh!!!" on the Tamron (post #4). Would you say this is a strike against the Tamron? It hardly matters how good the IQ is if the thing won't focus properly. And I'd want to know how it behaves in low light before buying. Any info on this?

And can you please explain what you mean by saying a couple of times that the Canon was designed for FF as I really don't understand this! Mine seems to give outstanding results whether on a venerable 400D or a new 5D2.

Extrapolating from his past/present/suggested future kit. If he comes along now and says he is a pro he does take 100,000 shots a year and needs a metal barrelled lens and weather sealing, I'll gladly recommend the 17-40, but he'd be needing a different body as well.

The tamron's AF is a bit loud and the focus ring moves, but it's fast and snappy (except in low light at wide focal lengths where it becomes a bit more hesitant.)

The 17-40 is a full frame lens, it's primary design is to be a UWA on 35mm sensors. That's no reason for it to perform any less well on crop sensors (indeed, crop sensors only make use of the sweet spot centre portion where image quality tends to be best), but there are plenty of lenses designed to project smaller image circles so can provide larger ranges and/or faster apertures for the same price/size/weight. Nobody is saying the 17-40 is a bad lens or is any worse on crop than it is on full frame. It's just that for a lot of jobs on crop sensors there are better value lenses which produce image quality just as good with wider ranges and/or faster apertures. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just a slower lens with a shorter range and not the best image quality in the price bracket for crop sensors.

Of course options aren't just limited to the tamron, the tamron is just the cheapest with excellent image quality. The AF is probably it's biggest drawback for most users, and if that bothers the OP then he should look elsewhere.

 

[jon ryan]

Extrapolating from his past/present/suggested future kit. If he comes along now and says he is a pro he does take 100,000 shots a year and needs a metal barrelled lens and weather sealing, I'll gladly recommend the 17-40, but he'd be needing a different body as well.

And we also need to know what sort of shooting he favours. The Tamron seems to have problems with af, and perhaps in low light, which may negate the advantages of the f/2.8 capability, wouldn't you say? If the OP is looking for a budget lens with some weather protection for instance, this may not be the best. And so forth. We need more information.

The tamron's AF is a bit loud and the focus ring moves, but it's fast and snappy (except in low light at wide focal lengths where it becomes a bit more hesitant.)

Fast and snappy compared to what? The 17-40? The Canon 17-55 kit lens? And a fast wide angle lens that doesn't work well when wide and in low light? You're not winning me over with this revelation.

The 17-40 is a full frame lens, it's primary design is to be a UWA on 35mm sensors.

There we go again. Canon were not selling a 35mm sensor camera when this lens came out. How could it have been produced for them? It works perfectly well on any Canon EF body.

That's no reason for it to perform any less well on crop sensors (indeed, crop sensors only make use of the sweet spot centre portion where image quality tends to be best),

Exactly! This is the point. By using a lens with FF capability on a `C` sensor, you are likely to get enhanced performance! We get there at last.

but there are plenty of lenses designed to project smaller image circles so can provide larger ranges and/or faster apertures for the same price/size/weight.

True, but those lenses are not really under discussion here, are they?

Nobody is saying the 17-40 is a bad lens or is any worse on crop than it is on full frame.

So why bring up the crop/FF matter in the first place?

It's just that for a lot of jobs on crop sensors there are better value lenses which produce image quality just as good with wider ranges and/or faster apertures.

Citation, please. With full comparisons in all common shooting situations and including longevity and residual value. Thanks.

There's nothing wrong with it, it's just a slower lens with a shorter range and not the best image quality in the price bracket for crop sensors.

Again, you seem to be cherry picking, rather than taking the overall performance of the lens. And how do you reconcile your statement that "crop sensors only make use of the sweet spot centre portion where image quality tends to be best", with your last sentence?

 

[squishy]

:bang: You're still completely missing the point.

There we go again. Canon were not selling a 35mm sensor camera when this lens came out. How could it have been produced for them? It works perfectly well on any Canon EF body.

The 1Ds and the 1D (which isn't full frame but is EF only, since no 1.3x crop specific lenses are made)

True, but those lenses are not really under discussion here, are they?

That is EXACTLY what is under discussion here.

The OP is looking for an all-rounder wide/medium lens to use on a 450D. Yes the 17-40 has USM and is well built, but there are plenty of options with less restrictive ranges and/or faster apertures in the same price range (the 17-50 being a very good example of this).


I'm not arguing this any more, this thread has been seriously hijacked (apologies to the OP).

 

[odd jim]

And we also need to know what sort of shooting he favours. The Tamron seems to have problems with af, and perhaps in low light, which may negate the advantages of the f/2.8 capability, wouldn't you say? If the OP is looking for a budget lens with some weather protection for instance, this may not be the best. And so forth. We need more information.

Fast and snappy compared to what? The 17-40? The Canon 17-55 kit lens? And a fast wide angle lens that doesn't work well when wide and in low light? You're not winning me over with this revelation.

There we go again. Canon were not selling a 35mm sensor camera when this lens came out. How could it have been produced for them? It works perfectly well on any Canon EF body.

Exactly! This is the point. By using a lens with FF capability on a `C` sensor, you are likely to get enhanced performance! We get there at last.

True, but those lenses are not really under discussion here, are they?

So why bring up the crop/FF matter in the first place?

Citation, please. With full comparisons in all common shooting situations and including longevity and residual value. Thanks.

Again, you seem to be cherry picking, rather than taking the overall performance of the lens. And how do you reconcile your statement that "crop sensors only make use of the sweet spot centre portion where image quality tends to be best", with your last sentence?

Sorry Jon, I've read all the post and arguments on this, but the fact is for 99% of the photographers using APS C, the Tamron is by far the better buy, better lens than the 17-40L.

You'd get mugged by the price, then left with something less useful if you bought the 17-40L.

 

[jon ryan]

Sorry Jon, I've read all the post and arguments on this, but the fact is for 99% of the photographers using APS C, the Tamron is by far the better buy, better lens than the 17-40L.

You'd get mugged by the price, then left with something less useful if you bought the 17-40L.

OK, I've never used the Tamron, so can't speak from experience, but are you really saying that it represents a better buy, taking everything into consideration? If you were offered the choice as a prize, which would you take home? And why?

(And I have to apologise to you, squishy. I was rather hoping that you'd pick up that the 17-40 was originally produced for film, not digital cameras. I'm marking student photography papers in between getting a rise out of TP posters, and one of the things I try to do is get them to think it through )

 

[mjb123]

You guys!! This thread certainly went on a tangent quite amusing! If only I new what the frock you were going on about!!😜

 

[jon ryan]

Hi mjb123! Welcome back. This is sort of typical of TP; you get used to it

Usually some useful stuff is hidden among the bickering, though you may need to look pretty hard.

Seriously, can you give us an idea of what sort of photography you do, and what your budget is? You may (possibly) get some straight answers.







(Though I wouldn't bet the house on it)

 

[odd jim]

OK, I've never used the Tamron, so can't speak from experience, but are you really saying that it represents a better buy, taking everything into consideration? If you were offered the choice as a prize, which would you take home? And why?

(And I have to apologise to you, squishy. I was rather hoping that you'd pick up that the 17-40 was originally produced for film, not digital cameras. I'm marking student photography papers in between getting a rise out of TP posters, and one of the things I try to do is get them to think it through )

If I were to accept one as a prize, I'd take the 17-40L. Then I'd sell it, buy the excellent Tamron for personal use and use the rest of the money to go on a last minute holiday, and take lots of lovely photos with the Tammy!

 

[mjb123]

Hi mjb123! Welcome back. This is sort of typical of TP; you get used to it

Usually some useful stuff is hidden among the bickering, though you may need to look pretty hard.

Seriously, can you give us an idea of what sort of photography you do, and what your budget is? You may (possibly) get some straight answers.

(Though I wouldn't bet the house on it)

Hi Jon I mainly take pictures of my daughter, holidays ect! I bought the tamron thinking I'd be able to get into some sort of wildlife photography but it wasn't really up to it! I'll hope to get a bigma or 100-400 at a later date but thats another day!

Just want to get some good results like I had with my old kit lens!
I'm not saying the tamron 18-270 didn't take good pictures but it was definitely a lot more difficult to get a nice sharp image!

I like the sound of the tamron 17-50 would prob go for the vc version as I need all the help I can get!
But also to pair this lens I'd like 1 with a bit of zoom that produces sharp images that doesn't break the bank!!

 

[jon ryan]

Hi Jon I mainly take pictures of my daughter, holidays ect! I bought the tamron thinking I'd be able to get into some sort of wildlife photography but it wasn't really up to it! I'll hope to get a bigma or 100-400 at a later date but thats another day!

Just want to get some good results like I had with my old kit lens!
I'm not saying the tamron 18-270 didn't take good pictures but it was definitely a lot more difficult to get a nice sharp image!

I like the sound of the tamron 17-50 would prob go for the vc version as I need all the help I can get!
But also to pair this lens I'd like 1 with a bit of zoom that produces sharp images that doesn't break the bank!!

The `superzooms` don't tend to get a very good press, I'm afraid. As you got good results from your kit lens, why not get another of those? You can usually pick them up quite cheaply, and that would leave more for something longer. Cash spent on lenses is roughly proportional to quality. (With a couple of exceptions, such as the `nifty fifty`). In general, zoom multiples much greater than about 3 - 4 (ie 70-300, 100-400) tend to struggle to produce good images throughout the range. They can be slow in operation, and can be hopeless with poor light. There are quite a few choices in the 70-300 area, and that is long enough to get some decent wildlife shots. I've read that the 450D is pretty good at high ISO, so you may not need the very fast lenses - and these really do get expensive for the long stuff. If you can get an IS (= Image Stabilised for Canon) model, so much the better, but this can add considerably to the cost. If you're planning to shoot wildlife from a tripod, IS is less important.

But, at the end of the day, learning to use your kit is more important than the actual kit...

Cameras, after all, don't take photographs.

 

[mjb123]

Well thanks all for input it's been fun if not entirely helpful! As soon as my lens sells I will be purchasing a tamron 17-50 vc version and a canon 55-250 is, as I've read some fairly bullet proof reviews on here!