New Lens Option - Take 2

[Down to Earth]

Gonna try and do this link free so bear with me. Here are my two options I'm looking at to add to my Canon 50D

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens for Canon Digital Cameras

v.

Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS

Differences between the two:

Telephoto range 17-70 for Sigma v. 28-75 for Tamron with Macro capabilities for the Sigma lens.

Minimum f-stop on Sigma f/22 v. f/32 for the Tamron, max is listed on Sigma as 2.8-4.0. Anyone know why it is a range on not just 2.8?

Canon (APS-C)format for the Sigma v. Canon (APS-C), 35mm film/full frame digital sensor for the Tamron

Image stabilization capability on the Sigma not the Tamron

Both are similar in price where I would buy them and equally rated on the consumer reviews.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

[ricerdude69]

I've found with my shorter lenses I always want wider, so thats the direction I'd go, may want to consider the tamron 17-50 2.8, similar price and very high image quality in my experience, and you still get the wide end and the 2.8 aperture.

[MN Shutterbug]

If you don't already have a wide angle, you'd be better off with the 17 - 70. With the crop factor, 28mm is darned near what is considered normal focal length, similar to 50mm on a 35mm body. Also, there will rarely be the desire to shoot narrower than f22 and macro can be kind of fun at times. You'll find this on nearly all, if not all zooms, that the aperture changes as you zoom. It's just one of the downfalls of a zoom vs. a prime lens.

[Dbl]

I personally own the Tamron 28-75/2.8. I like it because it is a fixed aperture of 2.8. Image quality is very good with this lens. I've blown up posters to 20" x 30" with no issues using this lens. Focus speed is fair at best.

That being said I also own a Canon 17-40/4 that I consider a work horse in my lens stable. I would not be without it. The wider end is very useful. I would personally not worry about IS on a lens of this focal range. It honestly is not a huge benefit.

I have never been a huge fan of Sigma lenses. I have owned a few in the past and they all got sold within a few months. Quality control was never a strong suit. The newer Sigmas are making strides but I honestly have not given them another chance.

I personally do not own any zoom lens that is not fixed aperture. You pay more but the quality and convenience of fixed aperture is worth the extra cost for my shooting. You really are talking about two different zooms here. The wider end of the Sigma is not even in the same category as the Tamron. I think the suggestion of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a very good one. That is a highly regarded aftermarket lens.

[MN Shutterbug]

I personally own the Tamron 28-75/2.8. I like it because it is a fixed aperture of 2.8.

I guess I was out in left field on this one. Then again, I haven't owned all that many lenses.

[Down to Earth]

Thanks for the feedback. I am doing some low light no flash indoor sports shooting, so I am leaning more towards the Tamron lens so I can take advantage of the 2.8 fixed apeture when I need it.

[Dbl]

Just be aware that just because you have a 2.8 fixed aperture that doesn't necessarily translate into acceptable focus speed in lower light. I don't use my Tamron in low light indoors on fast moving subjects (basketball, volleyball, hockey, etc.) because the focus is not fast and it has a tendency to hunt a bit, and that is on 1 series camera bodies. I still own a 50d and have used it with the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and unless you shoot a lot of shots you will get a keeper ratio that is fairly low. That might be OK but you may have to up your volume of shots to compensate. I just hate to miss "the shot" because my equipment is not up to speed so to speak.

For low light indoor sports there is a relatively low number of quality lenses that are up to the task, and most of them start at about $1,000 on the low end. I am not trying to burst anyone's bubble but I've been shooting indoor sports for a number of years and have found often through the school of hard knocks and stray lens purchases that there are lenses that will perform but most of them are not cheap!

[Down to Earth]

Yeah Dan, when I bought my 50D from Finnbay back in 2010 I was able to pair it up with a used 70-200 L-series lens so I know what you mean when your talking about the cost of quality lenses. The Tamron is coming in at at just $500. You may just have me thinking that waiting another year and using the point & shoot for more general stuff, I could probably have the money to put up for the L-series 24-70mm.

Thanks for the help.

[Dbl]

At just under $800 you can get a 17-40/4 which is an L vs. $1300 for a 24-70. I love my 17-40. Provides wonderful reach when paired with a 70-200. Another good option to look at is the Canon 85/1.8. At just a touch over $400 it is one of Canon's true hidden gems for indoor work. Fairly fast focus and sharp, mine gets used in the really dark venues. It is not a zoom but I've gotten shots with it when the 70-200/2.8 just wouldn't cut it.

More things to consider.

[MN Shutterbug]

I second what Dan said about the 85/1.8. I used this lens for a BB game one time and at ISO 3200, I got some excellent action shots.

[Down to Earth]

Thanks for all the help. After weeks of reading hundreds of reviews on B&H and Adorama from users as well as reviews from other camera sites I placed my order tonight on a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom Lens i. As i do plan on walking around in the woods with this lens, I was drawn to the Canon 17-40/4 due to its dust resistent qualities, but in the end went with the Sigma due to the flexibility of the f/2.8 and lower price, which just gets me to the Canon 85mm a little quicker. It won't get shipped out until Monday since B&H is closed for the Holy Week so I still have a few days to change my mind. Its been fun and difficult at the same time going through the process.

[captainshane]

I am sure you will like that lens. I have the same lens and I love it! No complaints.