In the market for a new lens

[996GT2]

I sold my Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX recently, and have been looking for a lens to replace it.

The Sigma was good, but it wasn't exceptional in any one area for me. Not quite wide enough for landscapes, not as good as a prime for portraits, and the 1:5 magnification is merely ok.

I like shooting macro, portraits, and landscapes, so I was looking mainly at the Sigma 17-70 since it's a lens that can handle all 3 relatively well. The ultra-wides are much better for landscapes, but they are more limited in their use.

I'm looking at the following:

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX HSM: Ultra-wide great for landscapes, HSM motor with full time manual focusing

Tokina 12-24mm f/4 IF: Similar reasons as the Sigma; better build quality and constant aperture, but no HSM and not quite as wide

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC: No HSM, variable aperture, but very nice range and 1:2.3 maximum magnification.

Canon 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM: Again, great range, IS, and USM , but slow aperture

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Di II: This would be pretty similar to my Sigma, actually, but I've heard so many things about it being amazingly sharp that I might just give it a try

Or...maybe you guys can suggest something else I should look into?

I currently only have my 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5mm USM and a 2x teleconverter. So I've got the long end covered, but I need something to cover the rest of the range.

 

[jpeyton]

Sigma 17-70mm; had one, thought it performed very well (especially for the price).

The Tamron 17-50mm is also a good choice, although it doesn't have the macro capabilities of the Sigma, it does have that sweet constant aperture if you enjoy shooting wide-open.

 

[andylawcc]

you have the 12-24 Tokina on the list but not the 11-16mm? I heard it got pretty rave reviews.

also, throwing in an underdog here, the Tamron 10-24mm. So far i heard one guy on dpreview saying it's a decent contender. Personally I wouldn't go for the 17-50mm considering you just parted with your Sigma variant. I too think 17-70 would fit your interest best.

 

[corkyg]

Sigma 17-70mm is fast and has all the capability to meet your stated needs. Good value!

 

[996GT2]

Got a 17-70 today

 

[idiotekniQues]

for such a diverse choice of shooting styles, just one lens is not going to cut it. it will do maybe 2 out of 3 decent and fail at one.

which of those three do you shoot the most - as in for each 3, what percentage of your shooting is it.

if its macro and portrait - get a 50mm macro lens. kill 2 birds with one stone. then save up for an ultrawide. if you shoot landscape more, grab an ultrawide plus a 50 f.18 for 75 bucks that will nail portraits. then grab a macro lens later.

 

[angry hampster]

Do you have $$ for two lenses? Get a Sigma 24-70 and a Sigma 10-20. I had that setup for a while with a 20D and loved it. I still use the 24-70 on my 5D. Great portrait lens.

 

[996GT2]

I used to have a sigma 24-60 2.8, and I didn't like it much on an APS-C camera. I might get a 10-20 to go with my 17-70 though

 

[Funyuns101]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Got a 17-70 today

how is it? i've been thinking of picking one up.
can you post some sample pics later?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Funyuns101

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Got a 17-70 today

how is it? i've been thinking of picking one up.
can you post some sample pics later?

I'll post some pics after I receive it. Should take a few days through FedEx