General hesitating prime samyang 35mm, canon 24-105 or sigma 17-50

D

deleuze3

Well-known member
Hi everyone im really hesitating between prime samyang 35mm, canon 24-105 or sigma 17-50 on my canon 60d.

Samyang 35mm is a bit big.
The canon 24-105 is big too and doesnt have wide angle.

Sigma 17-50 seems to be a better choice, but i wonder how is the quality and if it could become my only len i use.

Thanks for any feedback about it,
Have a good day,
Deleuze3
 
I would go for the samyang 35mm, the IQ is head and shoulders above the other two.

And if you want a zoom, another very interesting option: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC (the VC version is soft).

More here.
 
Add my vote to the Tamron 17-50 non-VC.

Bought a new one off of eBay two months back...I still can't turn off my big smile every time I use it now.

Simply put...amazing for the price point.
 
Having owned the aforementioned Tamron and now the Canon 17-40 f4, I'd say a used copy of the Canon lens is the way to go. Just as sharp, better build quality, full frame. I don't see the point of f/2.8 zooms with today's high ISO's.
 
I often use my 24mm f/2.8 wide open on full frame. At f/4 and on APS-C, it would feel really deep for me, for many shots. Not that I can't stand that look, just that it's nice to have the option of a somewhat-blurry background.
 
I bought the 17-50mm Tamron a couple of years ago for my Canon 60D, essentially because it was a cost effective constant aperture zoom, but I was plesantly surprised with it. Today I took delivery of the same lens for my Nikon D5200, I felt no need to experiment further with a different brand.
 
Samuel H said:
I often use my 24mm f/2.8 wide open on full frame. At f/4 and on APS-C, it would feel really deep for me, for many shots. Not that I can't stand that look, just that it's nice to have the option of a somewhat-blurry background.
Click to expand...

At 38mm (35mm equiv) I can understand how the difference can be important between f4 and f2.8. But at 28mm (35mm equiv) not so much. In general, it's also a bit unfair to compare a 2.8 prime with a 2.8 zoom.

My point is that buying an f4 zoom over an f2.8 zoom can result in savings that can be used to buy a fast prime (or several, if they're vintage). And while 2.8 is fast for a zoom, it's really not so fast for today's primes.

I mean, does anyone really buy a wide to mid zoom for its bokeh?

In any case, I maintain agreement that the Tamron is an excellent lens and one really can't go wrong with it. My work is also in stills and I found the IQ of the Canon 17-40 to be superior in many respects, which is saying a lot.

It's rather disppointing, isn't it, that Tamron's VC version is inferior?
 
Well, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-vc is actually half the price of the 17-40 f/4L, so the price difference is not there. There is a big difference in build quality, though.

And yes, the VC version was a big letdown, check what Roger Cicala wrote about it in his post "Stuff I wish I never bought".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top