Time to buy another lens

[scotthayes]

About to buy (hopefully last for a while) another lens.

At the moment I've got a Canon 70-200 f/4 L and I'm now looking for to take me up to 70mm for my Canon 400d.

At the moment my thoughts are to go for the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX DG. I've also looked at the 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG but the fact it has an 82mm filter thread I'd have to pay at least another £50-60 for a filter is putting me off a little.

Any thoughts on the Sigma or any suggestions for another lens?

Thanks in advance for the normal excellent advice.

Oh and my budget is around £250-300 (for lens and filter for protection)

 

[disdat]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and I love this lens. It has a great wide angle at 17mm, but won't quite take you to 70mm.

It depends if you think the 50-70mm would be missed. I don't really miss it, and I leap from 50mm to 100mm for my lenses.

 

[Grimace]

Since the middle of the range is pretty flexible when you move your feet a bit, you might also check out a wider lens like the 17-40mm f/4L lens. It's great quality and a surprisingly low price (relative to Canon L glass.)

 

[scotthayes]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and I love this lens. It has a great wide angle at 17mm, but won't quite take you to 70mm.

It depends if you think the 50-70mm would be missed. I don't really miss it, and I leap from 50mm to 100mm for my lenses.

Could probably live with the gap between 50-70 if the lens is good enough, and the little extra between 17-28 could serve me well for my holiday in Rhode Island and New York later this year.

Since the middle of the range is pretty flexible when you move your feet a bit, you might also check out a wider lens like the 17-40mm f/4L lens. It's great quality and a surprisingly low price (relative to Canon L glass.)

At £500 it's a little over my budget but may have to see what e-bay has to offer.

 

[TWLreal]

My opinion of the 17-40 has always been that it only makes sense if you own a full frame camera.

There are better alternatives than the 17-40 on a crop camera such as yours.

Someone has already mentioned it, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is excellent even wide open. It's both faster and cheaper than the Canon.

For the record, I wouldn't buy it since I'm not a big fan of the autofocus noise, noise not sound, and I'm saving up for the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. But otherwise, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

And if I'm reading your post right, you're looking for a standard zoom. There aren't that many choices apart from the Tamron and the Sigma equivalent, 18-50 2.8 I believe.

Sigma also offers a 17-70 but is a variable aperture lens. People seem to be happy with it but again, I wouldn't buy it.

Canon also offerst the 17-85 IS, which spans quite an attractive focal range along with IS. But the performance isn't stellar but the price and flexibility is right.

 

[davem7]

At £500 it's a little over my budget but may have to see what e-bay has to offer.

Two things to note:

1) The 17-40 is in the current Canon cashback offer period - you can get £40 if you buy before 30th June effectively reducing the price to £460.
2) If you're interested in the 17-40, there's a bloke I know called kerso from other photography forums who imports from the US and sells for a cheaper price than you can generally find over here. They come with international warranty and you can still claim cashback offers since they come with a UK invoice. I've bought a 100-400, 10-22 and 24-105 through him. PM if you're interested.

 

[scotthayes]

Well, once again, thanks for all the advice.

Tried the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 today... YUK!!! zoom ring really stiff and could feel air blowing on my hand as I turned it. Plus the 82mm filter thread adds another £54 ($100) to the cost. shop didn't have the 28-70 in stock.

The Tamron felt nice but then tried the Canon 17-40 f/4.0 L... more than happy to move my feet a little to get closer to the subject, great advice Grimace

Will be buying one on Thursday. Little more than I wanted to pay, but re-jig of my finances and all sorted.

Davem7, thanks for the offer but will go direct to shop.

 

[iBookG4user]

Well, once again, thanks for all the advice.

Tried the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 today... YUK!!! zoom ring really stiff and could feel air blowing on my hand as I turned it. Plus the 82mm filter thread adds another £54 ($100) to the cost. shop didn't have the 28-70 in stock.

The Tamron felt nice but then tried the Canon 17-40 f/4.0 L... more than happy to move my feet a little to get closer to the subject, great advice Grimace

Will be buying one on Thursday. Little more than I wanted to pay, but re-jig of my finances and all sorted.

Davem7, thanks for the offer but will go direct to shop.

That's a good choice, when I made the same decision a couple months back I chose the 17-40mm and haven't regretted it once. It's a great lens with fantastic quality, and you can always fill the gap between 40 and 70mm with prime lenses life the 50mm ƒ/1.8 and the 60mm ƒ/2.8.

 

[Kebabselector]

It is a great lens. Was my walkout lens till I got my 24-105. And was the walkabout lens in my brief time I owned a 1D MkIII (dont ask).

It seems to be around the £500 mark from most places (cheaper at Martins Camera shop - Leeds I think, but I heard too many stories about them on the Eos Forums).

Another vote for the excellent service from Kerso by the way. I've just checked Kerso on Ebay and he only has 3 items listed at present. Though I did read on Eos forums that he's ill at the moment (Man Flu apparently, so he could be out of action for months!)

 

[CrackedButter]

Could probably live with the gap between 50-70 if the lens is good enough, and the little extra between 17-28 could serve me well for my holiday in Rhode Island and New York later this year.

At £500 it's a little over my budget but may have to see what e-bay has to offer.

If you find the 17-40 going for £250 that I'm watching on ebay, don't bother okay?

 

[harcosparky]

Well, once again, thanks for all the advice.

Tried the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 today... YUK!!! zoom ring really stiff and could feel air blowing on my hand as I turned it. Plus the 82mm filter thread adds another £54 ($100) to the cost. shop didn't have the 28-70 in stock.

The Tamron felt nice but then tried the Canon 17-40 f/4.0 L... more than happy to move my feet a little to get closer to the subject, great advice Grimace

Will be buying one on Thursday. Little more than I wanted to pay, but re-jig of my finances and all sorted.

Davem7, thanks for the offer but will go direct to shop.

EXCELLENT CHOICE !!!!!!!

I have the 17-40 f4 L, and now the 70-200 f2.8L IS

Sure there is a gap in coverage but I never seem to shoot in that area anyway. I bought the 17-40 when I bought my 30D, I bought the 70-200 last week when I bought my 5D. Well the 70-200 has arrived but the 5D is in transit. ( I hope )

 

[iDave1984]

Second the excellent choice!

I bought the 17-40 f4 about two and a half years ago for my 300D, and now have it one my 5D - it hardly ever comes off the camera. I have the 'nifty fifty' 50mm f1.8 to bridge the gap between the 17-40 and my 70-200 f2.8 IS...

Dave