Canon-fit lens advice without spending any more money!

[Kermit power]

Hi All,

To go with my 450D, I currently have a Sigma 10-20, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and a Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

Here is my conundrum...

I really don't use the 10-20. I got it thinking I'd get lots of wonderful landscapes and stuff, but even when I have managed to find an impressive scene, the results I've got have been underwhelming to say the least. I am therefore thinking I should probably put it on Ebay.

Of course, as soon as I do put it on Ebay, I'm promptly going to find that much as I like it, the 28mm end of the Tamron is just going to be far too narrow, and I'll get hacked off with it!

So, given that with the other lenses I'm covered for 70mm upwards, macro and portraits, what should I get to replace the other two?

A quick look on Ebay would suggest I should get around £300 for the 10-20, and maybe £200 for the 28-75, so I'm looking at a £500 maximum spend, and am happy to go second hand.

All of the well-rated Canon glass seems to be £200 or so above my price range, so would anyone recommend any of the 3rd party lenses? I would prefer to keep the f/2.8, but open to any suggestions.

[RobDickinson]

A used 17-55f2.8 IS should come in at 500 or less I expect? Wouldnt worry about loosing 15mm from 55-70.

Other than the tamron/sigma equivelants I dont think you have an f2,8 (constant) alternative.

No one makes a 17-70 f2.8, the sigma one is good but ends at f4.5

[Kermit power]

RobDickinson said:

A used 17-55f2.8 IS should come in at 500 or less I expect? Wouldnt worry about loosing 15mm from 55-70.

Other than the tamron/sigma equivelants I dont think you have an f2,8 (constant) alternative.

No one makes a 17-70 f2.8, the sigma one is good but ends at f4.5

I'm not too fussed about the 55-70 bit - I can always walk forwards or backwards a bit.

I'd like the EF-S 17-55, but looking on Ebay they sell for £600-650 in general.

[baptistsan]

Can't help with your dilema, but how do you find the Sigma 70-200 lens?

[Kermit power]

baptistsan said:

Can't help with your dilema, but how do you find the Sigma 70-200 lens?

It's pretty good. Mine is a rather old one, which could probably do with a service to clean up the inside, but it still takes some very decent shots.

[Kermit power]

Hmm... Anyone tried the Tokina AT-X 165 PRO DX?

[tinman0]

Kermit power said:

Hmm... Anyone tried the Tokina AT-X 165 PRO DX?

Nope, but just on the build quality of my Tokina 11-16, I wouldn't hesitate in getting another Tokina lens. Build quality is just superb.

[ruaricoles]

RobDickinson said:

Other than the tamron/sigma equivelants I dont think you have an f2,8 (constant) alternative.

Isn't that the answer? From advice on here I bought a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 a year or so ago and think it's great. No IS (and no HSM on the Canon fit version) but it's quiet enough and at £280 (from One stop digital) far cheaper than some of the other options.

And you could spend the £220 left over on a nice weekend away somewhere to enjoy using it

Ruari

Edited by ruaricoles on Friday 2nd April 22:46

[andyroo]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and it is a really good lens optically. Really sharp shots, even wide open. Negatives are the noisy af and the hunting it sometimes does in low light. But if you can put up with that it is a cheaper but still excellent alternative to the Canon.

[S47]

Easy really buy the new CAnon Efs 18-55 IS [kit lens] for £60 or less [I paid £53 for mine]
It'll be at least as good as anything else you own and probably better than all of em. It's a true bargain - well done Canon

[Kermit power]

S47 said:

Easy really buy the new CAnon Efs 18-55 IS kit lens for £60 or less I paid £53 for mine
It'll be at least as good as anything else you own and probably better than all of em. It's a true bargain - well done Canon

Had one with the original camera. Crap maximum aperture, hence I sold it. It most certainly didn't even come close to the primes I own, or to the 28-75 Tamron.

ETA - Please don't put square brackets in your text. It completely screws up anyone quoting you!

Edited by Kermit power on Saturday 3rd April 12:11

[S47]

I agree the original 18-55 Canon Kit lens was crap - the new one [the IS version} most certainly ain't, it's the only zoom I own - all my other lenses are primes
Oh I've previously owned 70-200 F2.8 'L' IS & 100-400 IS Canon zooms and they were both CRAP too.
I guess that's why Canon are currently upgrading all their zooms, and the new 18-55 IS kitzoom is one of the 'New Generation'

[Kermit power]

S47 said:

I agree the original 18-55 Canon Kit lens was crap - the new one [the IS version} most certainly ain't, it's the only zoom I own - all my other lenses are primes
Oh I've previously owned 70-200 F2.8 'L' IS & 100-400 IS Canon zooms and they were both CRAP too.
I guess that's why Canon are currently upgrading all their zooms, and the new 18-55 IS kitzoom is one of the 'New Generation'

Mine was IS. That didn't make it any faster. f/5.6 at 55mm just didn't cut it.

[havoc]

andyroo said:

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and it is a really good lens optically. Really sharp shots, even wide open. Negatives are the noisy af and the hunting it sometimes does in low light. But if you can put up with that it is a cheaper but still excellent alternative to the Canon.

I'll second that lens - feels more fragile than the Canon 17-55, but it's the sharpest lens I've got and is always on one of my two bodies!

[S47]

18-55 IS For Less than £60 the sharpness of this lens is superb, for sure its slow but thats what the IS is for to help you get sharp pics. if you want a fast 50mm lens get the nifty 50 F1.8.
The starter of this thread asked for a lens for little or no money the 18-55 IS fits the thread requirement, and it's a real good optic. Sure it don't weigh a ton like the 'L' lenses but at that price you can afford to get one for your bag
If you want a 'L' optice buy one and stop wasting everyones time starting the thread in the first place

[Kermit power]

S47 said:

18-55 IS For Less than £60 the sharpness of this lens is superb, for sure its slow but thats what the IS is for to help you get sharp pics. if you want a fast 50mm lens get the nifty 50 F1.8.
The starter of this thread asked for a lens for little or no money the 18-55 IS fits the thread requirement, and it's a real good optic. Sure it don't weigh a ton like the 'L' lenses but at that price you can afford to get one for your bag
If you want a 'L' optice buy one and stop wasting everyones time starting the thread in the first place

Oh dear, you didn't actually read my thread starter before getting abusive, did you, you silly little man.

If you had, you would've noticed all the detail of the lenses I want to sell which will give me the £500 budget on top of which I didn't want to spend any more.

Next time, maybe you could actually read what you're replying to before wasting everyone's time with an irrelevant reply.

Edited by Kermit power on Saturday 3rd April 19:19

[Cabinet Enforcer]

Trouble is that your after a kit lens sort of range, which means kit lens'.

Slightly left field, Sigma 15-30mm 3.5-4.5. Huge walloping lump of glass, sharp and cheap though slow and no HSM or OS.

Fast wide prime, sigma 20mm 1.8. Again no HSM or OS and a little soft wide open, very different to the 20mm at 5.6 from the 10-20 though.

Bite the bullet and get a kit lens, the spangly new sigma 18-50 has HSM,OS and is 2.8 at the wide end, finishes at 4.5 though, but your tamron covers that at 2.8 already.

Depending on how wide you want, the sigma 24mm 2.8 is an older lens that should be nice and cheap, its also compact and has a pretty good reputation for sharpness. You'd need to check it had been chipped to overcome the err99 problem though. Advantage of this lens is the 450 it would leave to spend on coke and hookers.