05-28-2011, 06:39 AM
[quote name='Philippe SXM' timestamp='1306518682' post='8861']
Well, in the eventuality of a zoom, I was originally interested by the Canon 17-40L which is a bit above my budget and "only" F4.0
When I was younger, I was a Nikonian and really happy with my Tamron 90mm mounted on my FA. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
I just check the test on PZ (of course <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />) for the 17-50 non-VC and VC also (just to understand your remark)and it looks a good alternate....
I never imagine anything else than a canon EF... I need to read more on the Tamron.
It looks that it is matching the result got with a prime, like the 70-200 F4Lis.. did it?
Anyway, Thank you for your approach... Really constructive!
[/quote]
The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro actually is a better idea than the Tamron, even though some reviews might make one think different.
People that have tried both, noticed how the Sigma does better at wide angle (less problematic CA, more contrast). In fact, it is more contrasty over the full range. It is also better built, focusses more accurately and more silent, and it also can focus closer.
So... in case you would go for a standard zoom with f2.8, try a Sigma 18-50 macro... it is a nicer lens.
The follow up, the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS HSM. is a;also a very good lens for its type. But it offers image stabilization in the mix.
The Canon EF 24mm f2.8 almost certainly will give a bit better results than that tamron, mostly due to contrast. Only noticable when shot side by side, of course.
I do have an f2.8 standard zoom myself (the original first version, the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC (non-macro). Very nice lens still, but primes just are nicer to use. More compact, more fuss free without having to zoom to a certain focal length, it is hard to define why I prefer primes over a handy standard zoom. And I for sure will be getting that EF 24mm f2.8, to be able to do close up stuff anyway (can't do that with the standard zoom, its physical length is just too big).
That is personal anyway... But again, if you are pondering about getting a standard zoom, the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 is the better lens compared to the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. And the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM is preferable over the Tamron VC.
Well, in the eventuality of a zoom, I was originally interested by the Canon 17-40L which is a bit above my budget and "only" F4.0
When I was younger, I was a Nikonian and really happy with my Tamron 90mm mounted on my FA. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I just check the test on PZ (of course <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />) for the 17-50 non-VC and VC also (just to understand your remark)and it looks a good alternate....I never imagine anything else than a canon EF... I need to read more on the Tamron.
It looks that it is matching the result got with a prime, like the 70-200 F4Lis.. did it?
Anyway, Thank you for your approach... Really constructive!
[/quote]
The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro actually is a better idea than the Tamron, even though some reviews might make one think different.
People that have tried both, noticed how the Sigma does better at wide angle (less problematic CA, more contrast). In fact, it is more contrasty over the full range. It is also better built, focusses more accurately and more silent, and it also can focus closer.
So... in case you would go for a standard zoom with f2.8, try a Sigma 18-50 macro... it is a nicer lens.
The follow up, the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS HSM. is a;also a very good lens for its type. But it offers image stabilization in the mix.
The Canon EF 24mm f2.8 almost certainly will give a bit better results than that tamron, mostly due to contrast. Only noticable when shot side by side, of course.
I do have an f2.8 standard zoom myself (the original first version, the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC (non-macro). Very nice lens still, but primes just are nicer to use. More compact, more fuss free without having to zoom to a certain focal length, it is hard to define why I prefer primes over a handy standard zoom. And I for sure will be getting that EF 24mm f2.8, to be able to do close up stuff anyway (can't do that with the standard zoom, its physical length is just too big).
That is personal anyway... But again, if you are pondering about getting a standard zoom, the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 is the better lens compared to the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. And the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM is preferable over the Tamron VC.