Focal lengths..........

Well I have been really reading alot and trying to pay attention as I want to upgrade my kit lens. A couple of months ago I purchased and returned the Tamron 28-75, long story, but it wasn't the lens, it was me at the time.


Anyway, it seems more folks on here recommend lens in the 17-50mm range. The Canon 17-40L, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Sigma 18-50 f2.8, ect.....
The other range and I would say definately less popular at least by sheer numbers is the 24-135mm range, Tamron 28-75 f2.8, Sigma 24-70 f2.8, Canon 28-135 IS, Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5, ect....
Then a few recommend the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 which I'm sure is a good lens from what I read but I would conclude that a constant aperture would be superior. But this Sigma 17-70 seems to cover the the whole range before you move up to a 70mm to 200-300mm range. So what is the deal with 50mm to 70mm? is this not important to the larger number of shooters? I mean I understand if you can live without the wide end(the second group) you got that covered, but most people recommend lens in the 17-50 range. Can someone shed some light on this for me.

TIA

Joe

Gaps in your lens ranges are ok ... you use different lenses for different things, and you can zoom with your legs for the in-between bits. When I had the kit lens, 55mm was long enough for most stuff. A gap between 55mm and 70mm would have been annoying at times, but I would have been able to cope.

But there are 55-200mm lenses anyway.

I guess the 17-50mm range is a good 'normal' range for an APS-C sensor camera, in much the same way a 24-70 is a good 'normal' range for a full frame sensor camera.

There are plenty of guys on here who shoot with the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 with nothing covering the gap ... I have a 24-105 and 70-200 which gives me an overlap, but I'd kinda like to have the 17-55 instead of the 24-105

The short of it is that your lenses are a matter of taste. If you want a better IQ than the kit lens out of a good walkaround lens and don't need low-light capability, the 17-70 would probably be a good choice. It's a bit faster on the long end than the 17-85 and doesn't have IS, but I think I've seen reviews where it outperforms the 17-85 in terms of IQ.

How much you wanna spend?

Oh, and don't forget it wasn't *that* long ago that zooms were crap and your only options were a few primes ... if you're worried about gaps

I've cover the focal length from 18mm up to 300mm and now this thread has made me think!! I don't use the standard 18-55mm lens

The 35-80mm I use for bike portrait shots and also a couple of weddings. The 80-200mm I'll use for the main work at motocross and the 75-300mm if I goto bike or car racing.

I'm looking at upgrading the 35-80 to a 24-70mm L lens during the winter, as the 80-200 is too much in some places (and no where to move to at some tracks!) and the 35-80 isn't fast enough!

At the end of it, it's just what your main subject is going to be in photography and which lens is ideal for the purpose.

Joe,

Zooms in the 24/25to 70/75 range were really designed for use on a FF camera, yes they do a nice job in some areas on a cropped body but that's not what they were designed for. On the other hand the 17-50 2.8 are desgned for cropped DSLR as the give you a reasonable wide angle (27mm)- to short tele/portait (80mm )

Since the camera makers didn't know how well cropped DSLR would sale they didn't design an entire new system instead they decided to just use what they had IE lens for 35mm cameras. Now that the cropped DSLR is firmly afixed to the market its worth the investment for them to design lens for them.

Mike