Author Topic: Mid-range zoom for my Canon (Read 12483 times)

araminta · « **on:** December 16, 2008, 09:55 »

Hi everybody,

I'm planning to purchase a new lens for my Canon 450D (not planning to buy a FF... yet) dedicated mostly to stock/studio photography (you know, the famous objects on white and why not some woman with headset on white too

)

I currently have a Sigma 18-200mm as a general purpose lens, a Canon 50mm 1.8, a Canon 100mm Macro and a Sigma 10-20mm... and a Canon MP-E 65mm Macro, but this one is not very useful here.

I'm now interested in a mid-range good/high quality zoom and I've selected some candidates:

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4-5 (cheap) - best range, but not as fast as the others ... but cheap.

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 (not expensive) - good range and constant aperture... but the 17-70 has a better range and is cheaper.

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (expensive) - Not sure with the range (70mm seems useful for "candid" portraits), and expensive, especially because it will not be compatible with a FF I may purchase in the future.

Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L (very expensive) - Probably the best one, but the most expensive too. I'm somewhat reluctant to spend so much money.

Can anybody share his/her thoughts on these lenses? Or any other lens?

Thanks

basti · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2008, 10:44 »

You should add Tamron 17-50/2,8 to your list, despite some pixel peepers reffer CA, its well over average quality. Sigma 17-70 is pretty ok and its often recomended for 40D. Generally the group Tamron 17-50/2,8, Sigma 18-50/2,8, Sigma 17-70/2,8-4 and Tokina 16-50/2,8 are pretty about the same quality. For general purpose mid-budget zoom I would go for Tamron 17-50/2,8 - Canon 17-55/2,8 is not as much better to pay 2x more for it. Canon 17-85 is abit too dark and has some optical quality issues.

Sigma 24-70/2,8 has some excellent reviews results and could be really killer for its price, especially for stock photography it could be best choice. For me 24mm is abit too long, though you have Sigma 10-20 to deal with that.

Canon 24-70/2,8 is superb quality, but also remember its very heavy and pretty expensive. Nearly 3x more then Sigma 24-70 with definitely better built quality, but we could argue if its really better in optics in case you choose good Sigma piece. I would choose it only in case I have really lot of extra money. However if I have to choose between Canons 17-55/2,8 and 24-70/2,8 I would rather pay more and choose 24-70.

araminta · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2008, 05:38 »

Thanks for your advices!

I was not considering Tamron indeed and I will have a look at the 17-50, but I think a 24-70 would better fit my needs here especially as I already have a 10-20.

And I agree, as picture quality is more important for me than built quality, the Sigma 24-70 is probably a better quality/price lens than the Canon 24-70 as 1/3 the price would require the Canon to be 3x better than the Sigma which it is not I guess.

And as soon as I don't know what to do with my extra money, I will purchase a Canon 5D Mark II with the Canon 24-70 and a Canon 70-200/2.8

qwerty · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2008, 06:20 »

There's also the 24-105L F4 IS worth considering, not as expensive as the 24-70F2.8. It's the kit lens for the canon 5d markII. From reviews not as sharp as the 24-70 but I think it's great especially with the IS

lisafx · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2008, 09:53 »

I have owned many of the lenses you mention over the years, including currently owning the Sigma 18-200 OS and the Canon 24-105 L IS.

Hands down the best zoom I have EVER owned is the Canon 24-70 2.8L. The image quality is simply breathtaking! Not only is it as sharp as my primes, but it has the most amazing color. Plus I almost never get any fringing with it, even in extreme contrast situations.

The 24-105 L is also a good lens, but I do get more fringing with that one. Still, for the range it is the best I have found. When I need longer than 70mm it is the one I use.

I have heard the Tamron 28-75 is good, but I tried three of them before giving up on getting a sharp one. I don't bother with Tamron lenses anymore. Their QC is just too spotty. Yeah, it's they're great if you get a good one, but it's like playing roulette for that to happen.

araminta · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2008, 10:18 »

Quote from: qwerty on December 17, 2008, 06:20

There's also the 24-105L F4 IS worth considering, not as expensive as the 24-70F2.8. It's the kit lens for the canon 5d markII. From reviews not as sharp as the 24-70 but I think it's great especially with the IS

Well... with one more lens as an option, things are even more complicated

Here in Switzerland the 24-105 is only about 10% cheaper than the 24-70. It is also not as fast (4 vs 2.8... IS will not help to get shallower DOF for portrait) and 100mm is not that useful for studio photography (I already have the 100mm macro).

I think my choice has now to be done between the Canon 24-70 and the Sigma 24-70... same range and aperture, only the price is different for sure and the picture quality. Lisafx confirms what I have read everywhere: the Canon 24-70 is an amazing lens.

Now is the difference in picture quality worth the 3x price ratio?

Does anybody have any knowledge concerning the picture quality of the Sigma 24-70?

Anyway, thanks to everybody for answering me.

Peter · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2008, 10:19 »

EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II is not bad lens at all.

araminta · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2008, 10:40 »

Quote from: Peter on December 17, 2008, 10:19

EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II is not bad lens at all.

The Sigma 18-200 f3-5-6.3 is not a bad lens either, and I have it already

I really want a lens which give me something new for studio / indoor / portrait photography and a fast high quality 24-70 would better fit my needs IMHO.

But thanks for your input!

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2008, 10:49 »

I can confirm that the Canon 24-70 is excellent and was well worth the money. I have no experience with the sigma. You can read the ratings at fredmiranda. I guess that not only the image qulaity will not be as good as with the canon lens, but also the focusing will be not as good. Since I bought the canon it I made the descision if I buy a lens I will buy the best available, since I will keep that lens anyway much longer than any camera. Personally I would rather wait to save money for a high quality lens, than spent it right away on cheaper lenses. Since currently my living comes from photography and quality is important, that will be my way to go. After image quality bokeh is for me the most important thing, thats why I would choose the 24-70 over the 24-105, even if the image quality is the same and the 24-105 has IS. If it would just be a hobby I might choose a cheaper lens.

basti · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2008, 11:32 »

Grab your camera, go to the photo store and do couple tests shots with both of them. Nothing better then personal experience. I saw reviews on Sigma 24-70 where both the built and optical performance were ranked as excellent, some reviewes say its one of the best lenses Sigma produces. Forget about Canon being 3x times better, it might be 20% but it might be less. The Canon 24-70 is superb quality, no denying that.

I was more or less decided to go for Canon 17-55 and when I saw in person, I must admit it was big disappointment. Dont be fooled by reviews, read them, but better go to test it yourself - do couple shots with your camera and both lenses, check them at 100% at home and then decide.

lisafx · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2008, 12:15 »

Quote from: araminta on December 17, 2008, 10:18

Does anybody have any knowledge concerning the picture quality of the Sigma 24-70?

I had looked into the Sigma 24-70 as an alternative to the Canon one, but after reading the reviews of it in the lens forum at dpreview.com I didn't bother with it.

(here's a sample discussion of the ones you are considering)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=30329597

Seems like nearly everyone preferred the Canon - even the people who liked the Sigma. And like the Tamron the quality of the Sigma lens seems to vary from copy to copy. I have never heard anyone get a bad copy of the Canon 24-70.

The only reason to get the Sigma would be price. If you can afford it you won't be sorry you got the Canon.

grp_photo · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2008, 12:29 »

mmmh i prefer my 28-75 Tamron over my 24-70L considering i paid 1200,-€ for the Canon and only about 350,-€ for the Tamron the Tamron looks like the better deal IMHO. Considering the good reputation the Canon has i think i should sell it IMHO its overrated.

grp_photo · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2008, 12:33 »

I have the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4-5 for my Pentax Cameras its very sharp considering the low price it has good value, only the mechanical build quality is not very satisfying IMHO.

lisafx · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2008, 13:08 »

grp_photo, looks like you got one of the good Tamron 28-75's. You are indeed a lucky person.

I would try my hand in Vegas with luck like that

However I notice that in both your posts recommending Sigma and Tamron you mentioned price. Certainly worth considering, to be sure, but I wonder how many people would prefer the Tamron or Sigma over the Canon if they were all priced the same....?

araminta · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2008, 06:45 »

Thanks for your comments guys and gals: I've juste ordered the Canon 24-70L f/2.8

I thought it would fit well on the 5D MkII body I've put in my 2009 wish list

fljac · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2008, 07:13 »

Hi araminta,

You mention a lot of completely different lenses. Be carefull not to waiste your money on something that might not be good enough.

Since you're not mentioning anything about wide angle, I would reccomend that you focus on something close to 20-70 mm. (for street canind, I would expect that your 200 mm. would be best, not the 70 mm.)

When investing in new equipment, it's important to know that maybe 90% of the good image, is directly dependent on the LENS! - So don't make the same mistake as many others before you. Don't buy the cheapest lenses. Price and quality really does have a connection. No doubt, the Canon 24-70 f:2.8 IS the BEST! - Regardless what the reviews of the Sigma or the Tamron lenses say!

The Tamron 24-75 f:2.8 comes highly reccomended, BUT!!! Be very certain that the downside is this: Tamron delivers very inconsistant quality, meaning that only a very few of them, are in fact as good as some reviews say.
I bought one myself, and I was quite lucky to get a very nice and sharp one. Unfortunately, the electronic for controlling the aperature, is broken! - That is the SECOND time that happens! - So, I have that great lens, I just can't use it - or sell it! Completely waisted money, even though the optics is great!

The Sigma lenses has a reputation for being quite good and quite consistent in quality, these days. Sigma offers low price and "professional" lenses. Please read reviews carefully - and go for the expensive line...

Here's a review page... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-Lens-Reviews.aspx and please do search for more reviews! I did'nt read the review completely, but I noticed that a weap point is that the 24-70 sigma produces lots of lens flare....

So.. this is not to scare you away, but the overall message is this. There is NO such thing as a CHEAP professional quality lens!

Later on, you'll proporly regret not investing just a little more in the lens.. Then rather save a little on the camera housing....

But at least... study reviews carefully - read more than one review before buying!

/Flemming

araminta · « **Reply #16 on:** December 23, 2008, 10:03 »

Quote from: fljac on December 23, 2008, 07:13

When investing in new equipment, it's important to know that maybe 90% of the good image, is directly dependent on the LENS!

I would have said 90% is directly dependant on the photograph

Quote from: fljac on December 23, 2008, 07:13

No doubt, the Canon 24-70 f:2.8 IS the BEST! - Regardless what the reviews of the Sigma or the Tamron lenses say!

I have indeed read a lot of reviews before and I knew that the Canon was the best... but also 3x more expensive.

Quote from: fljac on December 23, 2008, 07:13

The Sigma lenses has a reputation for being quite good and quite consistent in quality, these days. Sigma offers low price and "professional" lenses. Please read reviews carefully - and go for the expensive line...

It is the reason why I was considering the Sigma 24-70 too.

Quote from: fljac on December 23, 2008, 07:13

So.. this is not to scare you away, but the overall message is this. There is NO such thing as a CHEAP professional quality lens!

I agree more or less, but there are cheaper yet very good lenses which are worth considering (e.g. the Canon 50mm 1.8 ).

Quote from: fljac on December 23, 2008, 07:13

Later on, you'll proporly regret not investing just a little more in the lens..

It's the reason why as I wrote in my previous message I've ordered the Canon 24-70

Thanks for your input!

drop · « **Reply #17 on:** December 23, 2008, 10:08 »

i just got a 17-55 because of the IS.
the quality is not much diffent than the 24-70.

araminta · « **Reply #18 on:** December 23, 2008, 11:26 »

Quote from: drop on December 23, 2008, 10:08

i just got a 17-55 because of the IS.
the quality is not much diffent than the 24-70.

For studio / indoor, I would say the 55-70mm range is more useful that the 17-24mm.

I hope someday in the not so distant future it will be possible to buy a L 10-300mm f/1.2 lens for $500... until that day, we have to make choices

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Mid-range zoom for my Canon (Read 12483 times)

araminta

basti

araminta

qwerty

lisafx

araminta

Peter

araminta

Freezingpictures

basti

lisafx

grp_photo

grp_photo

lisafx

araminta

fljac

araminta

drop

araminta

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors