More reach for walk around lens

I currently have a Sigma 17-50 (2.8) as my main walk around lens. I am very happy with the lens and it has proven to be very sharp. My only issue with the lens is that I sometimes wish it had a bit more reach. I rarely shoot at the wide end so that's not critical for me. If I was to replace it with another lens what would be a logical choice that would provide me with similar quality, be a similar price and provide some extra reach?

Is f/2.8 important to you? If not, look at the Canon 18-135 STM, Sigma 18-250 OS, Canon 18-200 IS.

Or, keep the Sigma you're happy with and add a Canon 85/1.8

Shane.
Years ago I was in a similar situation in upgrading then the Canon 17-85 on a 40D. While the range was great I decided to upgrade the quality.
My choices were the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 L IS and the Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS.
Both had their advantages. Very tough decision.
I went with the Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS.
A few days later I purchased the 17-55 f/2.8.
For years both lived on my 40D and then a 7D. The situation would dictate which would get the most use.
I have no problems recommending the Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS for your needs listed above. Extra reach and you stated you do not use the WIDE that much.
If you feel you need to go wider than 24 on your crop, you can always invest in say a Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5.

Thanks for the replies. 2.8 isn't critical to me but I do tend to like fixed apertures. IQ and price are important though.

Our 18-135 lives on our 60D for general use. It really is a very useful range on a crop. 18 = 29mm on crop so not really wide. 135 = 216mm on crop. If you go that way get the new STM version. Very reasonable price on eBay.

shane_c wrote in post #17592664
I currently have a Sigma 17-50 (2.8) as my main walk around lens. I am very happy with the lens and it has proven to be very sharp. My only issue with the lens is that I sometimes wish it had a bit more reach. I rarely shoot at the wide end so that's not critical for me. If I was to replace it with another lens what would be a logical choice that would provide me with similar quality, be a similar price and provide some extra reach?

In my opinion, the 24-105 isn't wide enough on a crop sensor camera even though you don't shoot much at the wide end. I really like Canon's EF-S 15-85 on my 70D. My wife prefers the 18-135 STM on hers. We get excellent results with both of those lenses.

shane_c wrote in post #17592664
I currently have a Sigma 17-50 (2.8) as my main walk around lens. I am very happy with the lens and it has proven to be very sharp. My only issue with the lens is that I sometimes wish it had a bit more reach. I rarely shoot at the wide end so that's not critical for me. If I was to replace it with another lens what would be a logical choice that would provide me with similar quality, be a similar price and provide some extra reach?

Heya,

How much more reach?

24-70 F2.8 VC?

Very best,

I recently sold my 17-55 for a 24-105L and I am extremely satisfied with my choice. The 24-105 is about as sharp as the 17-55, but produces much better colors and bokeh. The extra reach and sublime build quality made it an instant favorite lens for me.

That said, I do have a 10-18 STM incase I need something more wide.

Petie53 wrote in post #17592761
Our 18-135 lives on our 60D for general use. It really is a very useful range on a crop. 18 = 29mm on crop so not really wide. 135 = 216mm on crop. If you go that way get the new STM version. Very reasonable price on eBay.

These comparisons are meaningless to the OP as he only has a crop camera.

The OP wants more reach - there are 15-85 which is an excellent lens and the used prices for it really dropped recently. More reach - 18-135. Even more reach - 18-200. Using a 24-105 on a crop is a kind of an overkill, since it is designed for a FF camera it is big and heavy. Besides, 24 mm is closer to a normal focal distance on a crop than to wide.

Yes, it may be nice to have a constant aperture, but one has to pay for it for longer reach lenses. It is always a trade-off. I chose the 15-85 when I used a crop camera rather than 17-55 for that reason.

Thanks for the replies. I looked into some of those lenses and I think I'll keep my Sigma since I know its a sharp copy. I'll likely pick up a telephoto in the next few months which will give more reach but it'll just mean I'll have to switch lenses every now and then.

28-300L. It's the only way. It's a big sucker though!

...Mike

I have the sigma 18-250 OS and love it for travel purposes. Wish I could narrow it down to just that one in my bag when I travel LOL.

If you are looking for a do everything crop superzoom then I would also look at the Tamron 16-300 VC. I had a try of one at the NEC Photoshow. I was really very impressed with the results using my 50D. When looking at the images at home in LR I had to keep checking the EXIF for the lens details, being so surprised at the results. Especially considering the generally poor lighting in the show hall.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #17600514
If you are looking for a do everything crop superzoom then I would also look at the Tamron 16-300 VC. I had a try of one at the NEC Photoshow. I was really very impressed with the results using my 50D. When looking at the images at home in LR I had to keep checking the EXIF for the lens details, being so surprised at the results. Especially considering the generally poor lighting in the show hall.

Alan

Unfortunately at 300 mm this lens is way too soft for me. Its great value for what it is, and for many people it may be the only lens they'll ever need, but its not a great lens, or even a terribly good one. As with all super zooms, you have to weigh the flexibility against the compromises.

I have both the Sigma 17-50 and a 24-105 and both get plenty of use. Another option yet to be suggested is looking around for a used Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS to add to the 17-50.