Cheaper version of Canon 17-55mm2.8??

[pttenn]

I realize the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS is rated as an excellent lens but it also has the excellent price of around $1000+. Is there a Sigma or Tamron that is close to the quality of the Canon for a lesser price? I'd rather spend the big bucks for a longer 100-400mm lens down the road but need a walk-around lens now to augment my 200mmL. Thanks for any advice.

[MrChad]

Your choices would be...

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0
Canon 17-85mm IS USM f4-5.6

All of these lenses will likely give up something vs. the 17-55 EFS IS, but you get what you pay for...

[In2Photos]

And the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 due out in the fall. A 50-135 f/2.8 will compliment it as well.

[pttenn]

MrChad--can you narrow those down to the BEST one of the "lesser" lenses?? :)

[aparmley]

ptten - Well, that Tamron [17-50 F2.8 Xr di II] is the little [updated in the di II] brother of the crowd favorite 28-75 F2.8 Xr di. My money is on that lens to be the crowd favorite in the non canon 17-50 range.

[LightRules]

Tamron [17-50 F2.8 Xr di II]...My money is on that lens to be the crowd favorite in the non canon 17-50 range.

Not if it's anything like the Tokina 12-24 and Tamron 11-18 profile. The new Tokie 16-50f2.8 is going to be nice, very nice. The Photozone review wasn't too impressive for the new Di-II. Resolution numbers were nice, but apart from that, especially at the 17mm end, barrel distortion and CA and LFO and extreme field curvature were problems for the lens. Let alone the build-feel issue, the Tokie will be one heck of a lens in this category, plus you get 16mm.

[323]

i wish these third party lenses had USM type features w/ FTM. u know how some people just pick up your cameras and start twisting things like they know what they're doing.... and turn the focus ring :mad:

[pttenn]

Well, now I'm REALLY confused but thanks for the input!! Nothing is ever clear cut, is it??? :(

[Digitalwave]

Well, now I'm REALLY confused but thanks for the input!! Nothing is ever clear cut, is it??? :(

Nope! I wish it were as well. I ended up getting the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX and I am VERY happy with it.

[MrChad]

MrChad--can you narrow those down to the BEST one of the "lesser" lenses?? :)

Nope, but I would say the old stand by--The best lens is the one you will pick up an use. Which lens on paper fits your shooting style and budget?

If it was me I'd by the Canon since I love the Canon USM IS system, and the added reach the Canon would provide to me, but constant aperture may be of more importance to you. If so you might not value my choice in lens.

The Sigma's will likely have some of the best build being Sigma EX's glass, but many on here love the Tamron XR series of glass for the value per dollar.

I'd say buy the one that fits your budget best and needs closest and ignore all else and go take pictures.

All of the lenses I mentioned are in the $400 and up range, none will be junk. If you are low on glass choices at home any one of these lenses will wow you out of the box I'm willing to bet.

I owned a Sigma 18-125mm DC for some time, this lens wowed me out of the box. My only gripe was the noisy front AF ring that moved in your hand, for that reason I'm a huge fan of the Canon USM ring type AF system.

[liza]

A friend who is a wedding photographer told me he was very pleased with the performance of the Tamron 17-50. I used the Tamron 17-35 last week for a wedding and, although the image quality was good, I found myself wishing I had the extra 15mm.

[Coco-Puffs]

wouldnt the 18-55mm kit lens be THE cheapest? :p

[pttenn]

Well I HAD the kit lens-- but I've sold my 300D with that lens to someone to buy a 20D. So now I'm looking for something a little better than the 18-55. :)

[jojohohanon]

A 50-135 f/2.8 will compliment it as well.

Really? That puts a whole 'nother spin on the eternal 17-55 / 24-105 / keep the 17-85 battle that has been going on in my head.

[In2Photos]

Really? That puts a whole 'nother spin on the eternal 17-55 / 24-105 / keep the 17-85 battle that has been going on in my head.

Yup.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=143482

[MrChad]

Well I HAD the kit lens-- but I've sold my 300D with that lens to someone to buy a 20D. So now I'm looking for something a little better than the 18-55. :)


What lenses do you currently use on the 20D then in the mean time?

If you don't have any glass the reach on a 17-85mm IS USM might come in handy.

Else one of the travel zooms, 18-125; 18-200mm might be the ticket too. The 18-125mm was my only lens for some time on my Drebel.

[doughboy]

The Tamron 17-50 should be highly considered. Photozone's tests, mind you, are measurebator tests that are very critical. If you're looking for somethign to replace the kit lens, the Tamron will easily fit the bill.