BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11135 posts, RR: 61 Posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4184 times:
I've had an EOS 60D since March of last year with the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens. After 7 years of not having a telephoto lens (since my Pentax film SLR days!), I got the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM last week and have been absolutely amazed by its quality and performance.
I would like to look into getting an equivalent quality standard zoom lens to essentially replace the kit lens I have which has a tendency to be quite soft when wide open. Anyone have any recommendations? I really would like an f/2.8 and image stabilization is a must so from what I can tell, that really leaves only two options, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM. The price of the Canon EF-S 17-55mm seems too high seeing how it doesn't have the build quality of an L lens and I've also heard it's not sealed well and has a tendency to suck in dust between the optical elements. The Sigma is priced very well and appears to have high quality optics, although its autofocus system doesn't seem great.
I've also never had any experiences with 3rd party lenses and am a bit apprehensive about it, especially since I will lose the excellent lens correction options in Canon's Digital Photo Professional software for pictures taken in RAW.
Would appreciate any feedback and advice anyone has.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
afterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1102 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4158 times:
The only other standard zoom lens (17-55mm range) with image stabilization for Canon APS-C is Tamron 17-50mm VC. However, according to reviews, it's image quality is well below the Canon and Sigma you've mentioned above.
SIA6696 From Australia, joined Dec 2009, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4135 times:
What is your budget like. If you can afford to splash some cash i would recommend the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM. or if you can wait the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II. if not go with the 17-55mm.
Yes the 24-70 does not have IS but since its a 2.8 you wouldn't really need it. at f 2.8 there is twice the amount of light then at f4. since its is a standard zoom hand shake will be minimal unlike on a tele. and you also get the added bonus of not needing a new lens if you upgrade to a full frame.
coninpa From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 233 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4120 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
If IS is a must, you might also consider the Canon EF 24-105 mm 1:4 L IS USM. L series will always give better images. This lens is a bit vignetting at 24 mm on a full frame, but is a good lens in cockpits if the airplane is shaking.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 5, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4098 times:
Quoting SIA6696 (Reply 2): What is your budget like. If you can afford to splash some cash i would recommend the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM. or if you can wait the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II. if not go with the 17-55mm.
These lenses are great for a full frame, but will not provide a wide enough angle on a crop sensor. If I upgrade to a full frame one day, I'll definitely look into these.
Fantastic photos. I've been very intrigued by this lens and considered it. Problem is it seems a bit too similar to the 18-135mm, even though it is clearly higher quality. By similar, I mean similar aperature range. I really do want an f/2.8 for low light situations and for high bokeh. I intend to use this lens for more than just aviation photography.
Quoting coninpa (Reply 4): If IS is a must, you might also consider the Canon EF 24-105 mm 1:4 L IS USM. L series will always give better images. This lens is a bit vignetting at 24 mm on a full frame, but is a good lens in cockpits if the airplane is shaking.
I very seriously considered this lens as well, only problem is it doesn't provide a wide enough angle for a crop sensor.
Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma I mentioned above?
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4538 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4091 times:
Quoting BA (Reply 5): These lenses are great for a full frame, but will not provide a wide enough angle on a crop sensor. If I upgrade to a full frame one day, I'll definitely look into these.
For less than the cost of a 24-70L, another great option is getting both the sigma 10-20 UWA lens and the Tamron 28-75 2.8. I have both and I LOVE the Tamron. Sharp as hell and beautiful results throughout the zoom and aperture range.
Just throwing it out there.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11135 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1102 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2009, 90 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 183 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 233 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
