walkaround to complement UW?

Alright so I've been looking at some lenses, and with the help of you guys I've pretty much settled on the Sigma 10-20. Now I'm still debating with myself the walkaround lens to go with it.

Would I be better off with a tamron 17-50 or a 28-75? Which would complement the 10-20 better? Would i miss the 21-27mm range if I went with the 28-75? The f/2.8 of the 17-50 might be nice on the wide end, since the long end of the 10-20 is f/5.6. A little overlap never hurt anyone. I'm just worried about not having enough reach.

Any other suggestions? I thought of the 24-105L, and 17-55, but both are a bit out of my range after the Sigma. Would the 28-135IS have good optics (comparable to the Tamrons)? I can live with worse build quality if it means good optics. That's ultimately what matters to me, though build quality and focusing speed are pluses. the only thing I'm afriad of is being spoiled by the HSM/USM and then getting angry with the Tamron for being slower at focusing. Is the focus speed something to worry about? I'm used to the kit lens and the 50 f/1.8 right now, so my expectations for focus speed are in no way high.

Edit: To put things in perspective I eventually plan on getting an 85 prime, a 135 prime, or a 70-200 f/4L (preferably IS, but funds probably won't permit), but this is in no way in the near future.

Thanks

Optically, the 17-50 is the best if you dont want to spring for the 17-55.

I would go with the Tamron 28-75.

lemminglover wrote in post #4927600
Optically, the 17-50 is the best if you dont want to spring for the 17-55.

I believe the Sigma 18-50 Macro 2.8 was neck and neck and better in some regards when it came out a year ago and was reviewed. In any case, another option to consider in the $350 price range. The macro mode works very, very well too!

I saw pictures from a Sigma 24-60mm and they look amazing, especially from a lens that cost under $200!

I had a Tamron 17-50mm and I was fine with the IQ and focus speed, but the build quality was bad..in fact the lens was broken (very minor..) and Tamron wouldn't cover it under their warranty. I have sent two lenses to Sigma and have been very impressed with their service.

My opinion is identical to Leminglover's.
BTW: I'd like to compliment you on your spelling of complement!

http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/image/788870​81

The verdicts I have read is that the Sigma seems to be slightly sharper than the Tamron and the build quality is a bit better, but folks like the extra 1mm, and I am not sure that the Sigma exactly matches the focal range it purports to have. Again, about the same type of discussion could be had between these two lenses as we have over the sigma 10-20 and the canon 10-22. You can't lose with either one.

Here is a recent topic discussing it.
https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=448​425&page=2

I see you have the 18-55mm kit... how do you like that range?

By all accounts, the "new" 18-55mm IS lens is much, much better. If that's a good range, one possibility is the newer 18-55mm... even if you also add the 55-250mm, you're talking a total of $550-600, and you have 18-250mm covered with IS!

Don't get me wrong - I'll throw in a heavy vote for the 24-105mm f/4L IS - that's mine, but I understand needing to limit funds... in that case, I think you've got some decent options (both my suggestion and some of the posts prior!)

I think the Sigma 18-200 OS and the Sigma 10-20 make a great pair!

I'd get the kit with IS, or the 18-200, but I don't feel like the optical quality would be up to par (I know the IS version of the 18-55 is better than the original, but still not what I'm looking for. By going to third party mid-range zooms I think I could get better quality for the buck).

I was looking at the Sigma 18-50, but I've heard of QC issues, focusing problems, and that it is soft up until f/8
(especially at the long end) in the old version, and the new HSM model is a nikon only mount. It' s a shame the 18-50 HSM would have been awesome. I'll give the sigma a second look, though.

I think maybe I should just buy the 10-20 now and decide on whatever will go with it later? Keep doing research and whatnot.

lmao about the compliment/complement thing. I didn't even notice what you were talking about for a minute. I think I know the difference subconsciously or something.

I had one of each the older 18-50 and the newer macro, and the newer macro is very, very sharp. I didn't have any issues with the old one either, the new one was just a tad sharper and contract/color was better.

was i talking about the 18-70? ooopss. well you have the 18-50 sigma HSM macro? So you like it then? I'm going to go to b&h and try out all of these lenses eventually. I have off this week, so I'm going to make sure I go.

There is no HSM version on the canon yet, but I believe Sigma will eventually have this across almost their entire EX lens line.

I had the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 Macro DC EX, and loved it. I found it to be extremely sharp, but had to sell it once I got the MKIII. The lens vignetted even worse than the Sigma 10-20, so now I have the Sigma 24-60mm, which is somewhat close to the same range for the 1.3 bodies.

If they have it, try it out. Also try the 1:3 macro mode, you can focus on a item about 6" and get some nice macro shots from it.

Sigma 24-60 2.8

It's $200 shipped at amazon!

http://www.amazon.com …ics&qid=1203046​135&sr=8-1

sadatk wrote in post #4931333
Sigma 24-60 2.8

It's $200 shipped at amazon!

http://www.amazon.com …ics&qid=1203046​135&sr=8-1

Thanks for that link!!! I looked on Amazon earlier and it was over $300. I just ordered one! Although I was not in the market for a lens in this range, you can't beat the price. I'll find something to do with it. It get's good reviews here and on FM so I'm sure I'll fun testing it out.