Upgrading kit lens.

aj124

aj124

Suspended / Banned
Messages
120
Name
AJ
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I am looking to upgrage my kit 18-55lens for my 450D. After a bit of research im thinking the sigma 17-70 might be a good idea. I shoot a lot of static cars for work and most of those shots are the interiors. indoor and out all year round so good low light is helpful.
Really im just looking for some advise/other options please.
 
Tamron 17-50 2.8 would do the job just nicely. Good in low light with 2.8 and incredibly sharp images.
 
Yep would also recommend the tamron,I have the VC version and its very sharp indeed.
 
Will have a look at the tamron, any others I should try?
 
Starting to de a trend here, sigma one not on the same level then?
 
aj124 said:
Starting to de a trend here, sigma one not on the same level then?
Click to expand...

From what i know the sigma ain't bad but the tammy always seems to come out on top in this focal range!
 
Well I just upgraded mine this week and guess what.... I went for the Tamron and very pleased.

Also just a note second hand-wise your looking at £190ish to £210 while Digital Rev new prince is £220 (where I got mine, super service!)

This is pretty much my first shot with it at 2.8, very sharp I think.

No Blues Here! by M+M Morrison, on Flickr
 
Thank you everyone so far. Think the tamron seems to be the one to go for.
Next question then is the VC worth the extra money?
 
Does anyone have an opinion on VC V non VC?
 
The non VC is generally regarded as being the sharper of the 2.
Although in real terms I think it would be difficult to tell the 2 apart unless severely pixel peeping and technique has a lot to do with how sharp a picture actually is!
If you shoot a lot of low light hand held then I would suggest that the VC would be beneficial if not save a few quid and get the non VC!
You won't be disappointed with either!
 
Yes as above the non-VC is said to be sharper but I would also imagine its very hard to tell. I probably have liked the VC but to me I don't think it will be a problem.

Needless to say I am well chuffed with mine... This is a 3 minute exposure at 2.8 and it is pin sharp :D

Full Moon Wreck by M+M Morrison, on Flickr
 
aj124 said:
Does anyone have an opinion on VC V non VC?
Click to expand...

There was a long thread about that earlier this year, the consensus amongst actual owners who posted was that the VC had the edge in sharpness.

I've had 4 (might actually have been 5 I don't quite remember) non VC examples and my latest VC model is noticeably better when printed big (or viewed at 100% on screen).

If you can, get the VC, the price isn't that much more to penny pinch for a non VC.
 
I did a lot of research a couple of years ago before settling on the Sigma 17-70 OS. I fancied the extra reach of the Sigma to complement my 70-300, and I am very happy with my choice.
 
Another vote for the Sigma from me. I upgraded on my 350D. It makes a good general lens with having the extra reach. Was good on my 350D and is even better on my 60D. Check out my portfolio http://www.flickr.com/photos/chpimagin
From memory all these are taken with my sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS. Only negative is that it isn't F2.8 throughout the range
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Another vote for the Sigma from me. I upgraded on my 350D. It makes a good general lens with having the extra reach. Was good on my 350D and is even better on my 60D. Check out my portfolio http://www.flickr.com/photos/chpimaging
From memory all these are taken with my sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS. Only negative is that it isn't F2.8 throughout the range
Click to expand...

Correct link
 
My daughter bought a Sigma 17-70 OS, front focused so much you could have taken a picture of tomorrow

Returned it and bought the Tamron 17-50 VC, very good indeed and only sold it because she went FF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top