MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photography Equipment => Cameras / Lenses => Topic started by: seawhisper on August 11, 2015, 17:12
-
Hi guys,
I just sold my good old Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens and I'd like to buy something with better optic quality.
I'm using Canon 50D.
I use the lens mostly for the landscape photography, some architecture just what you get when you go for a vacation.
Since I got a lot of blurry / out of focus rejections I'd like something sharp.
I tested canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 - not bad but I have a feeling not much upgrade as well. (Though I love the extra wide angle and how it behaves while against the sun.)
I'm thinking about sigma ART 18 - 35 f1.8 - I absolutely love the light here and it has some encouraging reviews. (Still, it has a kind of narrow angle.)
From what I see it seems the best for my purpose would be something that starts at 15 and closes about 40 - 50.
On the other hand 16 - 35 f2.8 looks just stunning, but I'm not that sure if it's worth the outrageous amount of money canon want for it...
I was thinking about spending about $1000 but it looks like it's kind of hard to find a good improvement from the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 I used.
Any thoughts on this? Been reading so much I think I have my brain washed out. ;)
-
The Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is a great all-purpose lens. I carry that plus the 10-22 and together they cover most everything for the kind of photography you mentioned.
-
On the other hand 16 - 35 f2.8 looks just stunning, but I'm not that sure if it's worth the outrageous amount of money canon want for it...
I want to buy the f4 version of 16-35 in November. I have a 6d. The price is lower than f2.8 and I read that has a better image quality/distortion and so on..
-
The Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is a great all-purpose lens. I carry that plus the 10-22 and together they cover most everything for the kind of photography you mentioned.
This is a very nice solution. How sharp do you feel these lens both are? Do you get sharp related rejections on them?
-
I want to buy the f4 version of 16-35 in November. I have a 6d. The price is lower than f2.8 and I read that has a better image quality/distortion and so on..
[/quote]
Yup, I use a Polish website where they do very detailed testing for camera equipment. f4 has a bit higher mark than f2.8 (4.68 / 4.89). It's a good lens when you're outside and it's sunny, but whenever you go inside and you don't have a heavy tripod which can be pain in the ass during vacation you're pretty much screwed. :/
-
but whenever you go inside and you don't have a heavy tripod which can be pain in the ass during vacation you're pretty much screwed. :/
Yep, that is true. I want to buy it especially for landscape when I use, most of the time, f/8 - f/11..
-
Yep, that is true. I want to buy it especially for landscape when I use, most of the time, f/8 - f/11..
[/quote]
And again you're right, that's true. :) Gosh there are sooo many things to consider. :)
-
The Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is a great all-purpose lens. I carry that plus the 10-22 and together they cover most everything for the kind of photography you mentioned.
This is a very nice solution. How sharp do you feel these lens both are? Do you get sharp related rejections on them?
Both are quite sharp, particularly the 17-55. That still doesn't stop focus rejections but should help keep them low. If you have a stationary subject you can always use stacking to keep everything in focus. That is usually too much trouble for landscapes but I do it occasionally if the front-to-back distance is very large.
-
Both are quite sharp, particularly the 17-55. That still doesn't stop focus rejections but should help keep them low. If you have a stationary subject you can always use stacking to keep everything in focus. That is usually too much trouble for landscapes but I do it occasionally if the front-to-back distance is very large.
Yeah, it would be great if I could carry a tripod everywhere, set as low iso as possible and stabilize the lens. Still it's way too much effort for a vacation shots. :)
I still can't decide wheather these lens are better than Tamron or not, not sure how to compare them...
-
It depends on if you are doing family vacation snapshots or travel shots for stock. I always bring a travel tripod and plan shots for stock when I am traveling, whether it is for vacation or my real job, but of course it is not necessary and too much trouble for family snapshots.
To compare the lenses you could try here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx)). Not sure if that is the Tamron you are looking at, but it does have some comparisons with other brands and he talks about its strengths and weaknesses versus the Canon and others. The guy at The Digital Picture does a great job with gear reviews and is the first place I look to for unbiased reviews. Good luck!
-
It depends on if you are doing family vacation snapshots or travel shots for stock. I always bring a travel tripod and plan shots for stock when I am traveling, whether it is for vacation or my real job, but of course it is not necessary and too much trouble for family snapshots.
To compare the lenses you could try here ([url]http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx[/url] ([url]http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx[/url])). Not sure if that is the Tamron you are looking at, but it does have some comparisons with other brands and he talks about its strengths and weaknesses versus the Canon and others. The guy at The Digital Picture does a great job with gear reviews and is the first place I look to for unbiased reviews. Good luck!
Thanks, it's a good idea! :)