Primary zoom for Canon APS-C

WilliamGuy

WilliamGuy

Member
Okay, so I know that the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is a good zoom for a crop sensor. But how well do the Sigma and Tamron equivalents perform?

I'm prepared to pay for the Canon, but will eventually upgrade to full-frame and don't want to invest too much money unless the Canon is worth it (I am not looking for a 24-70mm so please do not recommend one due to my desire to eventually upgrade).

So, my question... Is the Canon really worth the extra money? (Over double).

For clarity, I am referring to:

  • Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
  • Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC HSM
  • Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD
 
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC is a very nice lens... for the money. The Canon is better and has IS, but I went for the cheaper Tamron a few years back so that's what I would do (probably even more now that Canon is no longer the dominant player). The Tamron VC is a completely different optical formula, nowhere as sharp as the non-VC.
 
STM Lenses ,Little by Little are becoming the new standar for Canon cameras with video, Not only focus is silent and smooth they have a better IS, better contrast and sharpness, at the moment, 18-55, 18-135, 55-250, 40 mm, 10-18.
And more coming with the 7D Release this year
 
Felipe Henao said:
STM Lenses ,Little by Little are becoming the new standar for Canon cameras with video, Not only focus is silent and smooth they have a better IS, better contrast and sharpness, at the moment, 18-55, 18-135, 55-250, 40 mm, 10-18.
And more coming with the 7D Release this year
Click to expand...

I actually own Canon's 18-55 STM as they are the stock lenses for most APS-C these days. But the 18-55 and 18-135 have a slow variable aperture of f3.5-5.6 and as such are far from ideal.
Therefore I am looking for a fast fixed aperture lens that doesn't drive my ISO up as high, such as those listed in my first post.
 
I have the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS and definitely like it very much. I wish it had more reach than just 55 so I could ditch my 24-105, but you can't have everything, right?
The IS is great if you're doing any handheld shooting. If you can go test one at a store, try to keep the white focus box steady on something at 55mm without the IS, then switch it on.
 
Felipe Henao said:
Newest cameras have better iso performance 7D replacement sounds very promising,
Click to expand...

Even so, I doubt they could provide such clean ISO that it would offset the two whole stops of light that you'd lose by picking your stock STM lens over another with a fixed aperture of f2.8. And USM isn't terrible.

Andrius Simutis said:
The IS is great if you're doing any handheld shooting. If you can go test one at a store, try to keep the white focus box steady on something at 55mm without the IS, then switch it on.
Click to expand...

Exactly the info I'm looking for. I'll be using support for 90% of shots, but why limit yourself to that?

Does anyone have thoughts on the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM? That provides the equivalent amount of light on APS-C as a f2.8 would give on a full-frame! (negating some of the low-light advantage that full-frame offers). Just turned off by the focal range... top end providing only 50mm equivalent field of view, whereas the choices listed above would provide 70mm.
 
Last edited:
Felipe Henao said:
You have a lot to Learn, but go to school mean while check this
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase: USM isn't so terrible as to warrant losing two whole f-stops. I get so frustrated at being restricted to 3.5 (at best) and having a variable aperture is a nightmare also. Not to mention the loss of depth of field that already suffers with APS-C.
If they release more STM lenses with the new 7D as you say, then I hope they start with a fast new fixed aperture zoom with IS! :)
 
I know these are a bit slower, but what about:

1.) The new 16-35 mm 4.0 IS L that is coming out? That looks to be a very nice lens.

2.) The cheaper 17-40 mm 4.0? No IS, but only about $500+ a bit. And will work on full frame.

With either of those lenses, you might later be able to "jump" to the 70-200 as a second lens, if you can work without the 35 mm or 40 mm to 70 mm zoom range?


Personally, I do have the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 pair, which I absolutely love. Plus the 17-40 and 18-135 mm STM.

I know those aren't the "perfect" answer, but I thought I would mention them.

And as you told me not to mention, but - what about the 24-70 4.0 for about $900+? Pair that with using the 17-40 4.0 without IS only for 17-24? Or the 16-35 4.0 IS?

Too many choices! Like you, I have always tried to keep my full frame options open, because I do a lot of stills.

Good luck!
Michael
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... I'm a bit hesitant about going for the f4 lenses as I'll be shooting in lots of lowlight. What is your experience of shooting f4 lenses in such conditions? I'd love to hear how it's worked for you so far. Especially in comparison to the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's (which I am oh so envious of!).
 
WilliamGuy said:
But what about the new Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM? I'm skeptical of the range... but fixed zoom of f1.8 is incredibly useful for the APS-C? Essentially, it could take the place of a few primes? How much will I regret not having that extra 20mm range?
Click to expand...

Im using the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 for almost a year already and I LOVE it! I would say it is a MUST have lens for APSC cameras! I also shoot in low light and Im using it wide open. It doesnt have IS but even with a basic shoulder support this is not a problem in that range. About range...yes it is a bit limited but depending on your style of shooting it can be ok. Personally I havent missed the extra 20mm of the sigma 17-50mm f2.8 which is also a very good lens, but for sure inferior to the 18-35mm. I dont know what camera you re using, but another reason to consider the 18-35mm is that it works perfectly with the new AF of the 70D. Im pretty sure all the new Canon models will be featuring that AF from now on, so having a lens that works with that, is a more future proof choice. The sigma 17-50mm is slow and noisy with the AF.
Here is a comparison I made about a month ago that includes the Sigmas 18-35mm and 17-50mm. Nothing scientific...but it may help you: https://vimeo.com/94528964
And in that thread is the 18-35mm in action: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...vel-video-shot-on-70D-Sigma-18-35-Flaat_10-ps
I have to say that Im using the 3x crop of the 70D VERY often so I compensate the limited range of the 18-35mm.
 
Of course! I had forgot about the new Sigma! More expensive than the Tamron but worth the price if it suits your needs. Even sharper than the Canon 17-50, and faster too.
 
Considering the issues with offbrand lenses and C100 firmware Id stick with Canon, (17-55) - even if that is not your current camera the lens will probably hold value better and stay current.
 
WilliamGuy said:
Okay, so I know that the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is a good zoom for a crop sensor. But how well do the Sigma and Tamron equivalents perform?

So, my question... Is the Canon really worth the extra money? (Over double).

For clarity, I am referring to:

  • Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
  • Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC HSM
  • Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD
Click to expand...
I've been shooting with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC for a few years and it's a great and sharp lens. However I replaced my Canon 55-250 which is also a very sharp lens with the Canon 70-200 f4L IS and I have to say the Tamron suddenly feels very cheap by comparison. I guess I was blinded by the optical performance and low price. The movement is not dampened as with the L grade lens or all my vintage lenses for that matter. (I guess they don't make em' like they used to) I never tried to zoom in or out with the Tamron during shooting until lately, but now that I've taken a second objective look at it I can see why the price is cheap. I got my hands on a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and it's got a quality movement. With the extra stop and build quality it's more of a keeper than the Tamron.
All these lenses will give you good optical performance, better than most of the sensors can detect, the difference is which one will you keep and which one will you trade in.
I probably will keep the Tamron for my kid. He turns 6 in Aug and shoots nonstop with a Samsung Galaxy, and Iphone 4. Brave new world.
 
Last edited:
All very helpful! But no clear best (which happily means I can't go too wrong!).

So now my options come down to:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (for its IS and extra range)
or
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM (for the extra speed at the cost of range)

I will have both 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 prime lenses. So which would you prefer... a fast zoom supplemented with a longer prime, or a slower but longer zoom supplemented by the two fast primes? The second option is certainly the most traditional.
 
I think it may come down to your own personal style.

For me, my Canon 24-70 is my most used lens by far. I use it for probably 85% of my work since I got version I in 2003 or 2004.

On the other hand, I rarely use my Canon 17-40. Especially if you are willing to go to the primes when you need the extra light, I would think the longer lens would be more useful.

In addition, when I am shooting in low light it is usually at an event, where I need a longer lens, like my 70-200 2.8 You may also want to add something like the Canon 85 mm 1.8 to your "kit" of primes?

+++

This is almost off topic, but I also really, really like the Canon EOS M 22 mm 2.0 STM lens. You can pick up an EOS M with the 22 mm for around $250, or the whole kit with flash & 18-55 mm IS STM kit lens for $325 to $400.

I have started to use 2 EOS M bodies, one with the EXCELLENT 22 mm and one with the VERY GOOD (but slower) 18-55 mm to supplement my main body with the 24-70 & 70-200 at events & similar. It is basically the same sensor as the Canon T4i in a package about 1/3 the size & weight as the T4i with 18-55.

I also like the Canon 18-135 mm STM on the EOS M via adapter. It is the only non-L lens that I have really used in the past 10+years.

Good luck!

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top