Good zoom under $500?

Are there any zooms for under $500 that will give you the contrast and sharpness of a decent prime? I have a Sigma 50f2.8 and Canon 35f2. They both give good contrast and don't disappoint. They both do a decent job wide open, and the Canon is really fine stopped down. I like the color and contrast from the Sigma. I use a Canon XS (1.6 crop factor).

I would like more contrast than I get from my Canon 18-55IS (without PP).

The Tamron 17-50 is a great lens. Much better than the canon 17-85 which I sold. Infact, this is the only reason I still have a crop camera.

Paul

What zoom range are you looking for?

I just picked up a Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro and I'm loving it so far! I, too, was interested in upgrading my kit lens (although I have the non-IS version). I'm real impressed as far as sharpness is concerned.

55-250 gets good ratings relative to its price, not sure it will measure up to a prime though.

pcschwenke wrote in post #9019907
The Tamron 17-50 is a great lens. Much better than the canon 17-85 which I sold. Infact, this is the only reason I still have a crop camera.

Paul

-.- have you actually used any of those higher end lenses? I haven't used that tamron lens but I do have heard some good things about it though I really doubt it's THAT good. Do you really think it's better than 5dmk2 + 24-70L?

I like my Tamron 28-75 quite a lot. There are soft copies out there, but when you get a sharp one...it's wonderfully sharp! I've tried to love the Canon 24-70L three times and just couldn't find enough of a difference to justify the extra cost as I'm getting perfectly fine results with a much cheaper lens.

Here's a link to some images I posted: https://photography-on-the.net …?p=8494651&post​count=1115

I would be happy with the Tamron or Sigma 17/18-50 if I knew that most of them were reliable and QC wouldn't be a major problem. I'd be happier with a wider range, but image quality is more important than range. I have stayed away from considering the Sigma 24-70 because of the size and weight.

I already have the 18-55IS, but would like a lens that would give me more sharpness and contrast - without post processing in an imaging program. The resolution of the kit lens is OK, but it is not close to a good prime.

I bought the Tamron 17-50 and was very pleased with the images it produced, however I wanted a bit longer. I just purchased the Tamron 28-75 2.8 which gives me the reach I wanted.

I will keep one of them after I determine which one stays on the camera the most.

I don't think you can go wrong with either one.

The Sigma 17-70 I had briefly was hellish sharp and had very decent contrast. I only had it briefly as it wouldn't focus where I wanted, so I upgraded (!) to the 18-55 IS and was happier and had money in my pocket to boot.

xarqi wrote in post #9021311
The Sigma 17-70 I had briefly was hellish sharp and had very decent contrast. I only had it briefly as it wouldn't focus where I wanted, so I upgraded (!) to the 18-55 IS and was happier and had money in my pocket to boot.

I was actually considering this lens, but it looks like a step down for me.

Have you considered going used? I have heard the stories of focusing-issues but if you find someone who is willing to show you samples, perhaps you wouldn't have to worry? I don't know.. Especially on the internet, everyone posts their bad experiences, rarely do you hear of great experiences (in general, people like to complain). For one front-focussing lens, there may be 1000 fantastic copies. Just my .02.

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #9019955
-.- have you actually used any of those higher end lenses? I haven't used that tamron lens but I do have heard some good things about it though I really doubt it's THAT good. Do you really think it's better than 5dmk2 + 24-70L?

Are you seriously comparing a $400 lens to a $3500 combo?

If you just want to replace your kit the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 18-50 Macro are great options. I'd honestly say, for now, get a 55-250 though, and maybe, if you are willing to spend a bit more money, grab a 430EX II. You'll get a lot more out of the extra range and external flash than the former two lenses imo.

edit*
Oh, and see for yourself with the image archive threads

Tamron
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=209580
Sigma
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=331860

cedm wrote in post #9022363
Are you seriously comparing a $400 lens to a $3500 combo?

uh well he didn't say anything about the difference in prices.