Which lens would you buy?

[Angel Ariel]

Update on pg. 2!

I've had my DSLR (a Canon XSi) since 2008. I use it pretty well in manual mode, and have picked up a few things just from playing with the camera, but I've never had any photography classes or anything(though I'd like to!). I primarily use the camera for taking pictures of my family, and vacation pictures (especially Disney!). We are heading to Disneyland in the fall for the 60th, and I am *very* excited to take pictures thee as we haven't been there since DCA was completed.

I currently own the following lenses:

Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 17-55 (kit lens)
Canon 70-300 mm f/4-5.6

I've been saving up fo a few years to buy a new lens - and, originally, my thought was to buy the Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6, because I'd be more able to just carry one lens with me for the most part (and carrying the 50mm around isn't a probem...carrying the 70-300 can be a pain sometimes). I have the money saved up for this lens now, but I'm questioning whether having a better low light lens would be a better choice,especially with all the changes to dark rides since we were last there.

Here are the lenses I'm looking at right now:
Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (possibly used?)
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8

So here's where the poll comes in. Which option would you choose? Why? Or would you do something else completely? What are some reputable places for buying lenses used? Or should I just stick to new?Any advice is appreciated! It took a while to save up the money for this, so I want to make the best decision I can with it!

 

[mom2rtk]

Hey AA! I would be all in with the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. I love that dang lens.

Just ask some questions if you are buying it used. Mine lived up to its reputation as a dust magnet and I had to send it in for internal cleaning. It was still worth it to me. The image quality is outstanding and it is sharp sharp sharp.

 

[elmoandzoey]

Another vote for the 17-55 f2.8. I used to own the same kit lens you do (if you still have the one that came with the TSi) and replaced it with the f2.8. I was blown away by how much quality improved. I'd most definitely ditch the kit lens for that one before I would get a 18-200. My brother bought the 18-200 for the same reason (only having one lens) and was not satisfied with the picture quality. It'll be on par with the kit lens so it won't be a quality upgrade at all.

 

[havoc315]

I accidentally voted for the 18-200 but I meant the 17-55/2.8.

The 18-200 is a mediocre lens that gives a tiny bit of convenience. It's still not as light as simply having a kit lens on the camera, and it's not an image quality upgrade.

A 2.8 zoom is a very very nice image quality upgrade.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I'll admit to being nervous about buying used. There's a local camera store near me, should I maybe go talk to the owner there? (it's a small store). How do the manufacturer warranties work when you buy used? I don't even know where to begin with what questions to ask if we go that route!

 

[Angel Ariel]

Follow up question - in doing some looking around fo used pices on the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, I found these:

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 - at $519 that looks like a really great price...but it also makes me ask what am I missing?
Tamron 17-50mm w/VC

Neither Borrow Lenses or my local camera store's website listed any of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 for sale used. Amazon may have more options, I haven't fully explored there yet.

I don't have experience with the non-Canon lenses, so I don't know what to think here. The Sigma sounds like it'd be perfect...on sale for almost 50% off, and would allow me to still rent a lens (maybe the 30 mm f 1/4) and probably still have a little left over. But I'm wary of things hat seem too good to be true.

Anyone have any experience with the Sigma?

 

[mom2rtk]

AA, I did all of this research before I settled on the Canon back in 2010. I will add that the Canon lens has come down in price since then, so I consider it an even easier decision now. Here's a few of the threads I came across. The first one is the one I started for my own research:


http://www.disboards.com/threads/tamron-17-50-f2-8-to-vc-or-not.2455377/#post-36467555
http://www.disboards.com/threads/le...-dc-os-hsm-canon-mount.2544640/#post-38029683
http://www.disboards.com/threads/want-a-new-lens-for-my-xsi-17-55-2-8.2528840/#post-37745738
http://www.disboards.com/threads/another-lens-question.2716510/#post-41031509
http://www.disboards.com/threads/17ish-50ish-for-canon.2823268/#post-43059231



I will say that many have the less expensive Sigma or Tamron versions and love them to pieces.

Not sure whether newer versions have come out since I did my research, but here's what I came up with:

1) Sigma seems to be more hit or miss depending on whether you get a copy with front or back focusing issues.

2) The Tamron version without VC (their image stabilization) was seen as the sharpest of the 3rd party alternatives.

3) The version with VC was seen to have lost some of the sharpness of the VC version. Additionally, the focus motor on the VC version is very loud. You can hear it on this Youtube video:

That was a dealbreaker for me.

Once again, do your own research in case anything has changed since I did mine.

Did you check the Canon store for a refurbished copy? Subscribe to canonpricewatch.com and they will let you know when they run sales in the Canon store and when they restock.

If I didn't have such unsteady hands (making me want image stabilization) I might very well have gone with that non VC version from the Canon.

Keep in mind if you have the kit lens that came with the Xsi, you have had IS up to this point, allowing you to shoot handheld at lower shutter speeds. Having a faster lens will make up for that, but I wanted fast WITH image stabilization. Your needs may be different.

 

[havoc315]

I had the Tamron 17-50/2.8... it is very very good. A big step up from the kit lens.

See Tom Bricker's blog:

http://www.disneytouristblog.com/tamron-17-50mm-f2-8-lens-review/

 

[elmoandzoey]

The Sigma the weakest in that set. It is not quite as sharp. The Tamron is better. I used to own the Tamron in the Non-VC version (which is better than the VC version which in turn is still better than the Sigma). I upgraded to the Canon recently because my son dropped the Tamron. In looking at my pictures I can't see a difference between the Canon and the Tamron non-VC version. I'd suggest go for the Tamron if you can't get the Canon and completely forego the Sigma. It's really not worth it (which is probably also why you can get it so cheap compared to the others).

 

[mom2rtk]

I suppose I need to make my standard response here as well: The most expensive lens is the one you have to buy twice. Meaning that if you compromise at the outset, you could end up back in the lens market again sooner than you like.

Given the choice of a new 3rd party or a refurbished or used Canon (assuming you confirm it's not full of dust) I'd take the Canon. And I'm not anti-3rd party lenses. I have some I love to pieces from both Sigma and Tamron.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I definitely want IS...I will take a ook at those threads when we get back mfrom dinner tonight, thanks mom2rtk! And thanks or being patient with me as I ask all these questions . I think I may have to go tothat local stoe and see if I can test any of the lenses in person.

I did find canonpricewtach thanks to a post of yous I found while searching! Looks like the 17-55 offer they had going is sold out ight now. I've checked Adorama and B&H as well, and none seem to have thje 17-55 in stock. Sounds like it's a popular lens!

 

[mom2rtk]

I really suggest getting your hands on the lenses in person if you can. Sometimes that makes a difference.

I hope you're having a great Mother's Day!

 

[Angel Ariel]

wow that was a ton of typos! SOrry about that!

Happy Mother's Day to you as well! I may have to use the day as an excuse to just go with it and get the Canon

 

[mom2rtk]

wow that was a ton of typos! SOrry about that!

Happy Mother's Day to you as well! I may have to use the day as an excuse to just go with it and get the Canon

Thanks AA! And I totally think you should! (says the person not paying for it!)

 

[Angel Ariel]

Would something like this package - the lens, plus some filters and a hood, be a good deal? on one of the reviews I read, it mentioned a hood for the canon 17-55 being a good investment. The package is only $10 more than the new lens on amazon...

Oh, and how can I tell if its compatible with the XSi? It lists other rebel models, so I would think its compatible with the XSi as well, but would hate to buy it and find out otherwise!

 

[wdwmom2]

I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and I am very happy with it. You can get it used for $300 give or take.

The photos in this album were all taken with this lens less than 2 weeks ago. Some of the interior was very poorly lit.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/96522230@N03/sets/72157652591104332

 

[Angel Ariel]

Mom2trk - is there any post-processing done on the image in this post? It's beautiful! The light almost looks like stars in Katie's eyes!

 

[xlxo]

If you need a telephoto zoom... get the 18-200mm. Are you getting on a plane... need to think about carrying minimal lenses to save on weight and bulk.

Are you selling your pictures? Get the f/2.8. Otherwise the 18-200mm is practical for personal needs.

 

[wdwmom2]

3) The version with VC was seen to have lost some of the sharpness of the VC version. Additionally, the focus motor on the VC version is very loud. You can hear it on this Youtube video:

I just watched this video, holy moly!!!!! It made me RUN for my camera that already has this lens mounted on it. I flipped the camera on and started focusing away. Mine sounds NOTHING like that (thank the good Lord). Mine sounds no different than any other lens I own. That sound would be totally annoying! I purchased it used. Maybe the previous owner had a muffler installed

 

[SkaGoat]

That video is exactly what the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC sounds like, if you don't plan on using it for video, or very quite places (like during a very quiet ceremony, or theatre, etc), it's not a big deal, don't even notice it most of the time.

Personally, I'd go for a new copy of the Tamron, before I'd buy a used copy of the Canon, unless, AF speed is super important. The Canon is Ultrasonic, vs. micromotors in the Tamrons.