[jdash3d]

Hey Everyone,



I've decided to take the SLR plunge and since I'm very familiar with Canon cameras, I thought I'd stick with what I know and go with a Canon 60D. I love the specs and since I'll probably also dabble in video so the articulating LCD will come in handy.



I've definitely decided to go with the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD lens as it seems to beat out the Canon equivalent and it's cheaper - especially with the rebate. To accompany that lens, I need a standard zoom lens and here's what I've narrowed it down to:



Sigma 17-70mm HSM OS



Tamron 17-50mm VC



Tamron 17-50mm (non-VC)



Can anyone help me out and on top of helping me pick a lens, tell me why? I'm sure I'd be happy with all three. Currently I'm leaning towards the Sigma due to price and having image stabilization. I've read that the VC version of the Tamron seems to get soft at 50mm and it's the most expensive. I've also heard VC isn't necessary in this zoom range but it's definitely nice to have when shooting video. I'm so torn!



Thanks for any help in advance!

[wim]

Unless it is not within your budget, I'd suggest the Canon EF-S 15-85.



The question really is whether you need the F/2.8 or not. The Tamrons are both a constant F/2.8, the Canon isn't (starts at F/3.5), and neither is the Sigma (it only is at teh shortest end).



OTOH, IMO, if you need a fast lens, F/2.8 generally doesn't cut it either, which means you will need to go to primes anyway.



HTH, kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

I'd try the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM myself, instead of the tamrons and instead of the Canon Wim suggests. While it is true that f2.8 is not superfast, it is quite a bit faster than f5.6. And the Sigma is much better built than the Tamrons, and focusses better too.



Personally I never get lenses like the 15-85mm... a bit if a point and shoot lens, a bigger focal range bit no real play with depth of field.. espcially in the long portrait end it makes little sense to me.



So... yes, I would look at the Sigma 17-50mm OS HSM. Quite an impressive standard zoom for the money.

[Steinar1]

I would stay away from the zooms altogether until you get to know your camera. Start with a 35mm f2 and an 85mm f1.8, both inexpensive and very good and faster than the zooms. Use the 35 for general photo in the beginning, landscapes, etc. and the 85 for portraits and subjects where you need the tele. The 35 will do very nicely for video. When you know what you really want and need, then look into zooms. The lenses you quote are good, but much slower than the primes.

[jdash3d]

Thanks everyone for your replies! I appreciate the time anyone spends responding to this topic because I'm sure it pops up every week. I've exhausted myself with weeks of research in reviews and forums and it's nice to get specific advice.



Since I'm trying to be budget conscious:



1) I can't go for the primes as they're about $500 each on top of the Tamron 70-300mm.

2) The Canon EF-S 15-85 is a bit steep for me right now too, unfortunately.

3) The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM is still $150 more than the 17-70mm lens. Is it really that much better? I might be able to swing that if it's totally worth it.



My total budget is roughly $2000 so the 60D, two zoom lenses, a handful of filters, a 32GB card, and a bag pretty much fills that up. That's why I've narrowed it down to the three lenses up top.



So to stay on topic, I'd prefer help choosing one of these lenses as they're the ones that fit within my budget.



Budgets are necessary evils sometimes.



Thanks!

[Brightcolours]

Yes, the 17-50mm f2.8 from Sigma is worth it over the Tamrons' for sure. Better optics, much better build, batter AF.

The 17-70 is an ok lens too, but you do not really need the extra focal range because you are getting that 70-300mm Tamron anyway.



If budget is too tight, I'd rather go for the EOS 600D and spend a bit extra on the lenses.

[Guest]

[quote name='J-3D' timestamp='1302216745' post='7483']I'll probably also dabble in video so the articulating LCD will come in handy.[/quote]



If that´s a relevant aspect for you consider the Panasonic GH2. According to dpreview it "is easily the best video-equipped stills camera that we've ever used." And "Taken as a whole, the GH2 offers arguably the best video specification available outside of a dedicated video camera." Of note, while with a DSLRs your are forced to use the LCD for video the GH2 provides an electronic viewfinder, which is actually significantly larger than the 60D viewfinder (or any other APS-C DSLR), in addition to an articulating LCD.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1302291973' post='7499']

If that´s a relevant aspect for you consider the Panasonic GH2. According to dpreview it "is easily the best video-equipped stills camera that we've ever used." And "Taken as a whole, the GH2 offers arguably the best video specification available outside of a dedicated video camera." Of note, while with a DSLRs your are forced to use the LCD for video the GH2 provides an electronic viewfinder, which is actually significantly larger than the 60D viewfinder (or any other APS-C DSLR), in addition to an articulating LCD.

[/quote]



I met one of the high pros (car photography & video) and he's using the GH-2 because it's beating everything out there with respect to HD video. No jaggies just to mention the most obvious advantage.

[jdash3d]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1302290611' post='7498']

If budget is too tight, I'd rather go for the EOS 600D and spend a bit extra on the lenses.

[/quote]



I considered that route but the 60D's benefits are what made me gravitate towards it:



More cross-type focus points (9 vs 1)

Shoots faster (5.3fps vs 3.7fps)

Twice the battery life (1100 shots vs 550)

Twice as fast max shutter speed (1/8000 vs 1/4000)



There are a few other minor advantages but these were the main ones. For $170 extra it seemed worth it. Is that $170 really better spent on the Sigma 17-50mm vs the 17-70mm? Which trade-offs are more severe?

[jdash3d]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1302291973' post='7499']

If that´s a relevant aspect for you consider the Panasonic GH2. According to dpreview it "is easily the best video-equipped stills camera that we've ever used."

[/quote]



Thanks for the suggestion but this camera will be 75-90% photo and only 10-25% video. Like I said, "dabble". More for fun than anything serious. Does the GH2 compare to or even best the Canon for photography?