Best walk around lens for Rebel T3

[Donald Duck888]

I was wondering about peoples opinion of a good walkaround lens for my Rebel T3. I am hoping to upgrade from kit lens. I have looked at a few (unfortunantly the Canon F2.8 zoom I would really like is too pricey for me right now).

The lenses I have been looking at are

Sigma 17-50 F2.8
Sigma 17_70 F2.8-4
Canon EFS 17-85 F4-5.6
Canon EFS 15-85
Tamron 17-50 F2.8

I guess I need to choose between more low light ability and more zoom range.

What I am really curious about is peoples opinions on build quality, and image quality produced from the listed lenses. Do the sigma and tamron lenses have any compatability issues with the canon camera's?


Also will the 2.8 across the board make a big difference in low light performance and will the fact that the wider zoom sigma also has a macro feature be of alot of use?

Thanks so much for any input anyone can give.

 

[nbaresejr]

While i cant really help a lot on this i am very interested to see the responses. I have a t2i and was trying to decide between the sigma 17-70 and the 17-50. I have pretty much ruled out the tamron 17-50 non vc and vc mostly because i want image stabilization and have read the sigma is superior to the tamron is this aspect.

 

[reimero]

I don't have a lot of experience with those specific lenses, however, I can give you some tips.
First, a wider aperture (like a 2.8) will help low-light performance. A 1.8 (or, better yet, a 1.4) will help even more. In mathematical terms, an F2.8 aperture lets in twice as much light as an F5.6, and 1.5 times as much as an F4. This is enough to give you a shot at reducing that 3200 ISO down to 1600, which has significantly less "noise."

Second, when it comes to zoom lenses, size and weight are also considerations. A good lens that covers both "normal" and zoom will weigh a decent amount more than your kit lens. Additionally, in my experience, zoom lenses tend to lose light. On my wife's 35mm SLR, I've noticed that her zoom lens routinely loses about one "step" worth of light. In a nutshell, zoom lenses and low light don't go together. Having said that, zoom lenses are absolutely wonderful to have and allow for some shots you otherwise couldn't get.

Third, keep in mind that your kit lens is an 18-55mm lens. It generally goes from about F4-F22, but under certain conditions it only goes to F5.6, and in other conditions to about F3.5. But the Sigma 17-50 and Tamron 17-50 are essentially giving you approximately the same zoom range and an extra half stop worth of light (I have no idea whether the optics are substantially better.) If you're after the low light performance more than the zoom, I'd give serious consideration to the fixed focal length Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens (available for around $120.) No zoom or wide angle there, but a substantial upgrade in optics and significantly improved low-light performance.

I know it's not exactly "walkabout", but for a little under $300, you can have an excellent fixed-length lens for low-light and "general" purposes as well as a 75-300mm true zoom lens.

 

[DizzyV6P]

I've used my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 w/o any issues for the past 4 years. It's tack sharp and useful for the few weddings I have shot with. Tamron has a new version w/ VC (Vibration Compensation, Tamron's version is IS) that many reviewers have said is not as sharp as the non-VC version. A used Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC can be had for $300-$375.

The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS (Optical Stabilization) has gotten good reviews on the Canon forum (POTN). I was considering paying the $680 to grab this camera for a wedding, but ended up keeping my Tamron. It has been reported to be sharper than the VC Tamron, but your mileage may vary. Be sure to order/buy from a place that has an easy exchange policy on lenses. I usually shop from BH Photo, Amazon or Adorama for my camera supplies.

If you've got the cash, the king of the non-L lenses is the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It's also $$$$. But you can grab them used on POTN as well. There are a LOT of used ones floating around due to many Canon folks jumping to the new 5d Mark III full-frame and unloading all their EF-S leneses. I just saw a used one posted today for $875 with a hood on POTN.

All that being said, there has been times that I wish I had a Canon 15-85 because I didn't feel like lugging around my 70-200 F/4 L. All the lenses listed above are great for low-light/non-flash situations and are great portrait/kids lenses. If you don't shoot a lot of low-light and usually like using the flash, then the 15-85 would be a good walkaround lenses for vacations. It costs a bunch brand new, but there are a lot of used ones floating around now due to the 5D Mark III rush.

I don't usually take close pictures of bugs or flowers so I can't really say much about the macro features of a lens. But you can't go wrong with any of the lenses I listed above. I'd stick with the f/2.8 lenses and avoid the variable aperture ones except for the Canon 15-85. It really depends on what you will be taking pictures of.

 

[photo_chick]

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is the only lens I'd personally consider buying form those given what you have in your bag already.

 

[Donald Duck888]

Thanks to all for the replies so far.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is the only lens I'd personally consider buying form those given what you have in your bag already.

So in your opinion the Tamron is a better lens then the 2 Sigmas (17-70 and 17-50)?

Also I forgot to mention in original post that I do have a Canon 35mm F2 that I use for alot of my low light situations and a canon 55-250 for long reach.

Right now I am looking for an upgrade in Image quality from my kit 18-55 lens. Wish I had more $$ and I would go for the Canon 17-55 F2.8.

 

[Donald Duck888]

Hi all,

Just wanted to let you all know that i ended up buying the Sigma 17-70 to replace the kit lens on the T2i.

I bought it from a local photo shop so I was able to test it out before buying it and it has been working flawlessly since i bought it.

It came down to between it and the 15-85 and to be honest price entered into the decision. The canon was an awsome lens (at least the one i tested out) but was not $320 more awsome than the Sigma which was also pretty sweet.

I have to say that the photo's I have gotten while playing around with the sigma are really nice and truly seem to be a significant step above kit lens.

I think I am set for a while now with the 17-70, my 55-250IS and my 35mm f2.

I do have a question though (actually 2) the first is should I buy a filter for the sigma? It came with a hood but not sure about a filter as i dont want to degrade image quality.

My second question is what are the pro's and cons of going with a polarizing filter vs just a uv filter?

Thanks so much to everyone for all the helpful info you have provided.

 

[traylorc]

There has always been, and always will be, the age old debate regarding the use of filters. Some folks swear by using filters, they like the security of knowing their lens is protected.

In my opinion, unless you are prepared to spend some cash on the high end filters...the potential protection offered by the average filter does not offset the loss of image quality.

Personally I avoid using filters, and use my lens hood in order to protect my glass.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

The use of a UV filter, other than protection, is not necessary on a digital camera. On film cameras it was necessary because the UV rays affected film. I prefer not having another piece of glass that can affect image quality between my subject and sensor. I always use my hood as protection for my lenses. Whereas the polarizing is a filter that I have in my arsenal. It can be very effective in reducing glare and reflections. I recently used it to good use at the Smithsonian and National Geographic Museums. To save my self some money I bought a filter for my largest lens and then purchased step-up/down (I can never remember which way it goes) adaptors for the rest of my lenses. I can use the one filter on all my lenses (although without the hood).

 

[bob100]

Hi all,

Just wanted to let you all know that i ended up buying the Sigma 17-70 to replace the kit lens on the T2i.

I bought it from a local photo shop so I was able to test it out before buying it and it has been working flawlessly since i bought it.

It came down to between it and the 15-85 and to be honest price entered into the decision. The canon was an awsome lens (at least the one i tested out) but was not $320 more awsome than the Sigma which was also pretty sweet.

I have to say that the photo's I have gotten while playing around with the sigma are really nice and truly seem to be a significant step above kit lens.

I think I am set for a while now with the 17-70, my 55-250IS and my 35mm f2.

I do have a question though (actually 2) the first is should I buy a filter for the sigma? It came with a hood but not sure about a filter as i dont want to degrade image quality.

My second question is what are the pro's and cons of going with a polarizing filter vs just a uv filter?

Thanks so much to everyone for all the helpful info you have provided.

I agree with the others, leave the filters off because they can affect image quality and focusing

 

[photo_chick]

I'm in the no UV filter camp. Image quality degradation and additional flare are not worth the small measure of protection they provide to me.