replacing my Sigma 18-50mm

[TeddTucker]

I recently sold my Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 because i found it a tad soft. Although, to be fair, it was my first lens so I didn't have much of a comparison. the bottom line is I wasn't 100% satisfied. So now i need to replace it with something that will serve as my wide angle and portrait lens. Currently I have the canon 70-300 IS so I need something to cover the lower focal range. Here are the two options i'm debating right now:

Canon 28 f/2.8 and Canon 50 f/1.8 : about $300
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8: $430
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS: $180

This will be mostly used for landscapes and outdoors

any advice or suggestions?

Tedd

[fractalgfx]

I would rather have the compositional flexibility of a zoom. I also love shooting at wide angles, and I would find 28mm very limiting. 95% of the shots I take with my 10-22 are taken at 10mm.

Even though I own the more expensive canon 17-55 2.8 IS, I frequently recommend the Tamron as an excellent general purpose lens, because I have seen and heard so many great things about the lens.

If you are doing mostly landscapes you will probably be happy with both the Tamron or Canon 18-55. The image stabilization of the Canon, and large aperture of the Tamron are both nice to have, but you will never be using that wide aperture for landscapes, but you won't need IS at such short focal lengths in daylight.

The wide aperture of the Tamron will make it a better choice for portraits.

[michaelb]

If you want to take landscape and portrait shots with the same lens, then get the Tamron.

But if you don't mind using a different lens for landscapes than for portraits then I would get the 18-55 IS and the 50 1.8. The 18-55 IS gets great reviews optically - check out Photozone's review.

[GaryS]

I would suggest that you not look at the Tamron. The Sigma and Tamron are even in performance and price, and if the Sigma wasn't for you, then the Tamron wouldn't be much different.

The 18-55IS looks interesting, and its not expensive so even if its not perfect, its still worth having around. And like Michaelb suggested, add the 50 1.8 in there and you are set!

[lukeap69]

I have Tamron 17-50 that should be my walkaround lens. However, I find using my Sigma 30 and 50 1.4s a lot.

The Tamron though is my choice for landscape because of its versatility and of course it's wider than my 30.

So, it's either 1 or 2 depends on what you prefer. BTW, the more I use primes, the more I am liking them.

[Honest Gaza]

Are you totally put off from the Sigma brand ?

If not, try looking at the Sigma 17-70mm. Doesn't give you constant f/2.8 but that's not really an issue for Landscapes.

[cdifoto]

Are you sure the Sigma was soft? Are you sure you weren't simply expecting too much resolution from the sensor? You won't get fine detail on a crop camera when shooting distant stuff at wide angle, no matter what aperture you use - even at the sweet spot on the sharpest lenses. That's why full 35mm frame and even medium format is so popular among the hardcore landscape shooters.

[TeddTucker]

I think i was expecting a bit too much, but i had a chance to sell it for a great price so why not try something new.

Right now, I think i'm going with the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and the 50mm 1.8. I'm also trying to find a Tokina 17mm prime but I can't seem to find one for sale.

[cdifoto]

Hey if you can sell high, sell high! :D

[GaryS]

Tell me your secret Tedd, I would love to do a 'sell high' with my Canon 70-300IS!

[fractalgfx]

I would suggest that you not look at the Tamron. The Sigma and Tamron are even in performance and price, and if the Sigma wasn't for you, then the Tamron wouldn't be much different1.

I disagree, the Tamron has a much better reputation, and the technical reviews tend to support this. If you look at at the photozone analysis, the tamron has comparable resolution figures to the much more expensive canon 17-55, the sigma doesn't.