Sorry people gorra ask again...which lens?

siejones

siejones

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,547
Edit My Images
No
OK OK you have heard this story so many times but I need help!
It's the old story of which wide to standard zoom to choose to replace the kit lens.
Let me tell you what I have and what I would require from said lens.

My current setup:

- Canon 350D
- 18-55 kit lens
- Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro

The lenses I have been looking at:

- Canon 17-40 4L
- Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG
- Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG
- Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (out of breath)

I would mainly use it for landscape shots and by that I mean mountain landscape type shots. I am a hill/mountain walker
in the UK and the stunning views I sometimes see just have to be captured. Even if it just my benefit alone for that
perfect memory.

I have had a few digital compacts in the past from "fuji 2600 zoom" to G5 and have taken many many landscapes but
although they were a nice they were never really had the IQ and detail I wanted. Especially considering I would really
like to print out to A3 size to adorn my walls. So what I want is a lens that delivers sharpness and resolution enough
to produce the kind of put it on the wall and pick out the detail type quality.

This kind of photography I aspire to is the work of Colin Prior and to produce anywhere near his work would be my
ulitmate goal. I understand he uses large format cameras and expensive gear to produce his masterpieces and I don't
pretend this think I could match that kind of quality but I would like to get as near as I could.

I do not require a super wide and I feel the 17-18 is wide enough for the 1.6 crop sensor. Well for my needs anyway and
besides which I really would want to keep the a 2 lens solution. This being for reasons of lightweight and I know I
would end up not taking a shot just because I couldn't be arsed to get another lens out the rucksack.

Don't get me wrong I do also take other types of shots and would ideally love the lens to cater for all circumstances
but I know thats a little too much to ask.

What I have learnt so far:

Canon 17-40 4L - I know many of you will not hesitate to automatically suggest this lens. I know it has a huge following
and it is an L lens after all. One of the problems is that its a bit short and I really don't want to feel my self
needing that extra length in the middle of no where about the capture that once in a life time shot. Another is the
price of coarse. This would really really stretch my already choked credit card to the limits I shouldn't be in. I could
only do this if this lens was perfect for my needs and no other lens came close and from comparisons I have seen to the
other lenses I have mentioned. It seems it is not leaps and bounds ahead.

Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG - I have read many good and bad things about this lens. Mainly that it is sharp and contrasty but
suffers alot from CA and the corner sharpness is nothing to write home about. I also understand that like the other
choices in my list that it is a crop factor only lens. If I were to move to full frame later I would have to loose it.

Simga 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG - If only this lens was perfect. I mean look at that range...so..so useful. Although I have seen
a few fans of this lens. The images I have seen taken with it do not impress as far as sharpness is concerned. I have
even read that it is good for close up's but falls down for distant landscape shots. Which of coarse is no good for me.
Great low price but being the cheapest of the bunch offerinf the greater range this kind of raises alarm bells for me. I
find it strange to bring out a lens that can only be F2.8 between 17-20 as well. Why would you need it to be that wide
in that range?. Certainly not for portrait shots.

Tamron 17-50 e.t.c - I have again read mixed reviews and opinions of this lens. Mainly that it is sharp but suffers from
a lot of barrel distortion on the wide end and corner sharpness less that perfect.

I apologise to have droaned on for so long but I wanted you all to understand what I was looking for in a lens before
asking the question of which I should go for.

I have read review after review of all the lenses mentioned and I am still struggling to make a decision that will be
right for me.

Thanks to all and your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Sie
 
You are right, I am not going to hesitate to recommend the 17-40L, especially since you have read more mixed reviews on the other lenses, and none on this one. I have this lens and it is wonderful for outdoor shots, especially for the price (compared to the canon 16-35L.) There is a normal amount of light fall-off with this lens, but it is minimized when using a 1.6x camera.
I have always had better luck with canon lenses over tamron or sigma, even the non-L canon.
It's your choice obviously, in the end, but my mantra is to buy the best you can afford.
 
Welcome to the forums!

Makes a change to see a question like this where someone has done some research beforehand :)

If you find the perfect answer let me know as I'm still trying to work that one out.

I have the 17-40L and as you say the range is restrictive for a general purpose lens. The IQ though makes up for it. If you look for my recent threads in the sharing section there are some pictures from my recent USA trip with the 17-40L. It performed excellently and I'm pleased with the results.

I've no experience of the other lenses so I'll leave comment on those to others. I will say though that unless you are unlucky and get a bad one the kit lens is a lot better than many give it credit for and shouldn't be written off without a bit of comparison testing first.
 
I'd also go with the 17-40L - have only used this with a FF, but the quality of print you're looking for will be mroe than satisfied.

Just to throw a spanner in your works - considered a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5?? Great images from a very cheaply priced lens and only sold mine when i got the 24-105 L. Yes, it wont give you the super wide you want on a 1.6x, but it will only set you beack £180 max and you can stitch 2 or 3 shots together if you invest some of that saved money in a decent tripod and head. Also make a very convenient walk around with the zoom......

Good luck

Jon
 
For out and out consistency of build and image quality it's going to have to be the 17-40. Unfortunately as you say it's a bit short.

For landscape it's also got the benefit of weather resistance/sealing although I'm not sure how effective it is on a non 1D series, if at all. Must be some benefit though?
 
Another owner of the 17-40L here :thumbs:

It maybe short for a general walk around lens, but it's great for landscapes. On your 350 it's coverage is that of a 28-64, so it's not an ultra wide lens.

For that something like the 10-22 is needed, but again it's even more restrictive.

The 17-40 is only f4 all the way through too, so it sometimes struggles a little in low light. The sigma 18-50 f2.8 sounds interesting .....were those bad points about CA on a full frame body or a cropped sensor?

The non one series cameras get a slightly better deal from the lens when it comes to CA and edge distortion.
 
Wow super quick replies...thanks!

Dena: I have to say I have read a few mixed reviews on the 17-40 but not many. Fred mirandas user reviews being a good example although the good out weigh the bad but you find yourself looking for the bad :). One of the things I read was about it on the FF sensors losing corner sharpness due to the whole lens being used and saw an awful example of this on a 5D.

Jonnyreb: Curious you say it preforms so well of a FF considering my previous sentence. I presume this means you would disagree?. I did consider the range you mention in the non L canon's and it is still attractive to me but I really would miss the 17-18 range that I have gotten used to now.

dod: I know the build quality beats them all hands down but I feel this is not my most important factor and not enough to justify the price difference. Even though I will take my camera to some extreme locations I find I am always concious of it and treat it with the utmost of care. If i were a photo journalist running down a street with it around my neck clunking around. I would consider the build a lot more.

Thanks again

Sie
 
digital failure: All the other lenses mentioned are all crop frame camera only that will not transport to FF unless you want a lot of vignetting. This is another bonus of the 17-40 if I do decide FF somewhere down the line. That is until I read about the performance fall off I mentioned in the other reply.

Sie
 
If it's APS-C only it'll be a DC variant then, not a DG

I only have one non Canon lens and thats a Sigma Ex DG 70-200 f2.8 and it's a brilliant lens

The 17-40 spends more time on my 20D though, than any other lens
 
oops! yes sorry digital failure I typed those model codes out of memory. Should have known better
 
Hehehe, It gets :thinking: with all the letters.

Why not see if you can rent a 17-40 for a week end and see what results you get?
 
digital failure: Wish I could...No where in the UK to do that :(
 
Thanks but London is a long...long way away from me and there are none close enough to be useful.

Thanks for your efforts though :)
 
Wolverhampton nearish Birmingham
 
Hmmm interesting thanks...I remember being lead to that chain of stores when I looked but the prices were all in dollars and I presumed the UK stores would not be renting but there PDF says different. It does suprise me that the Birmingham store page says its not open on a Sat. That could be awkward.

Thanks again for your help digitalfailure
 
No probs
I wonder if it's worth asking the local members if they would lend you the lens for a few shots at a meet.

If you were going to the Chester zoo meet, you can certainly try my 17-40.
 
I just rang Calumet in Manchester for a rental and they were really helpful. They also ship overnight but it is a £15 delivery.
 
Wow your all so helpful!

I feel guilty now your all going to so much trouble.

Considering your all so convinced of the 17-40 I may just rely on your expertise and take a little lunch time trip to Jessops. I am very nearly swayed now...teatering on edge...I may fall!

I have already ordered a 50mm 1.8 as I thought sod it, I would use that anyways for the wide aperture and IQ anyways. Theres no harm in trying this with landscape shots either. Give me a good idea of what a prime can do for such a shot.

Sie
 
As you probably already know - There isn't really a requirement for a 2.8 lens for landscape stuff and to get the best sharpness and depth of field out of any lens you really should use a Tripod.

Like everyone else, I can only really recommend the 17-40L, not only because of its outstanding image quality but also due to its superb build quality and 100% reliability. You not think this is important but it's reassuring to know that it will never let you down.
 
This forum prides it's self on being friendly and helpful in a non elitist way.

It's an expensive fall, but worth every penny!
 
siejones said:
One of the things I read was about it on the FF sensors losing corner sharpness due to the whole lens being used and saw an awful example of this on a 5D.

Jonnyreb: Curious you say it preforms so well of a FF considering my previous sentence. I presume this means you would disagree?. I did consider the range you mention in the non L canon's and it is still attractive to me but I really would miss the 17-18 range that I have gotten used to now.
Click to expand...

Can only go by my own experience sorry Sie - and I'm always very dubious about what i read on other forums. As digital failure says - try before you buy! Although virtually unheard of, even L lenses can squeeze passed the most vigilant of QC and one review of a soft copy is the one that will be heard.
 
Just to throw a spanner in the works, have you thought about the Canon 17-85mm IS, This is supposed to be a little gem, and its got a good range that will fit it just right with your70-300mm????? :thinking:

You'll not find a better price than this guy either(any Canon lens), his names Ian (Kerso) a lot of people on this forum have used him, me included and we've all been pleased with his service. If you email him he'll give you an upto date price, if you deal outside Ebay he'll knock off money too.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BRAND-NEW-CAN...hZ003QQcategoryZ30070QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

PS if you do get the 17-40mm, let me know and i'll send you a voucher for £70 cash back, I've got a spare one.
 
Well it looks like you got all the info you needed on the lens choice but I thought I'd just pop in to say that Colin Prior ditched his Fuji 6x17 film camera a few years back for a digi eos and some stitching software.
:)
 
Glen: I have looked into the 17-85 but I think you are paying for the IS more than anything and I dont think is essential for landscape photography. I have also read about distortions and CA on this lens.

Very kind of you too offer the voucher...I may take you up on that :)...glad I joined this forum haha :)

I am gonna start a new thread off just to see if I can attract any other replys and just for a bit of fun.
 
Sorry for asking a dumb question but what is meant by IQ in reference to lenses ?
 
If you swaying toward the 17-40, have a look at the Tamron 17-35.
IMO it matches what the Canon can put out in image quality and it is good to go on FF sensors.
Its £200 cheaper than the Canon (UK pricing) and comes with a 6 year warranty (according to Tamron USA).

Some comparison shots.

I have one in my bag.
 
I too have the 350d, kit lens and Sigma 70-300 APO but looking for a replacement to the kit lens.

I was 1 click away from purchasing the 17-40 from onestop digital but decided againts it (as i am not 100% sure yet).

Really need a kit lens replacement (as this is on my camera 90% of the time)... hmmm.


I seem to do more landscape stuff than anything else but I would like to do indoor shots and portraits, so I guess I need a fast lens (i looked at the 16-35, would love that)


Anyway, I'm still on the hunt...
 
I was 1 click away from purchasing the 17-40 from onestop
Click to expand...

How much were you going to pay for the17-40??? was it £439 as advertised. Reason I'm asking is I've asked Kerso for a few prices on lenses and he is doing it for £420 and it ships from Scotland, thought this might help?
 
Glen said:
How much were you going to pay for the17-40??? was it £439 as advertised. Reason I'm asking is I've asked Kerso for a few prices on lenses and he is doing it for £420 and it ships from Scotland, thought this might help?
Click to expand...


Yup, £439...

£420 :eek: Where is this Kerso dude :) I'm from scotland so it beats hong kong by a mile (well, about 4500 miles)!!
 
I picked my 50mm up from him(awaiting a lightsphere 2 coming next week), he's based (or it was his daughter) in Buckhaven. If you look at Bachs signiture you'll see kerso's price list. Lots of people have bought stuff from him, his prices outside Ebay are cheaper too, look in the suppliers thread as there is thread open of people singing his praise. :thumbs:
 
Glen said:
I picked my 50mm up from him(awaiting a lightsphere 2 coming next week), he's based (or it was his daughter) in Buckhaven. If you look at Bachs signiture you'll see kerso's price list. Lots of people have bought stuff from him, his prices outside Ebay are cheaper too, look in the suppliers thread as there is thread open of people singing his praise. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for the info! :)

Looks like i will be going for a 17-40 with Kerso (when i speak to him)
 
Do you have a voucher for it? £70 cashback. If not I've got one going spare, you can have it if you want, or anyone for that matter, first come etc...
 
The thing is with that voucher is that you have to rip the barcode off the box to get the cash back. This worries me. What if I had to return the lens to the retailer. You can make a fair bet they would not have it back after the box had been damaged. I know it sounds daft but I read another thread saying it happened to some other bloke.
 
On a review site I have purused through many times.

http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/index.cfm

The reviewer takes the same shot of a harbour at both extremes of the all the lenses he reviews. He always does them stopped down to F8. This is a great for checking out exactly what I needed to know. Which is the best stopped down to apertures I would be useing for landscapes. I downloaded all the images for the lenses in question and compared them for sharpness and aparent distortion from edge to edge.

Most people are correct that the 17-40 leads the way but I have to say it is suprisingly closely followed by the Tamron 17-50. The 17-40 has the edge though.

Some people informed me that stopped right down that all the lenses would be similar but this test kinda proves that theory wrong.

It makes my mind up which is the best but now there is a toss up between the £500-600 17-40 and the £300 Tamron.

I would have upped all the images for you but there was a total of 13mb of them all together. If you follow the link and click on any of the reviews you will see the pictures I mean.

Have a look for yourself. Some of them are suprisingly bad.

Sie
 
Don't worry about the box, it's the item inside that is warranted.

All the Canon retailers are aware of the cash back promotion, so they'll all know exactly why the box has a tiny hole in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top