Up Grade

[drum]

thank you all for the advice, these canon lenses like the 17 55 the reviews rank them top quality with a price to match,, would it be wise to buy say tamron (ie 17 50) seems to do the same job but for a fraction of the cost,,? or would this compromise the quality I'm looking for,,

It is very rare when anything does the "same" job as something that's a fraction of the price.. but it does happen.

I can tell you that out of 30 lenses currently sitting in my equipment room.. 2 are Sigma's and all the rest are Canon's. One of the Sigma's covers a range (12-24mm) not covered by Canon, and the other covers a range/aperture (20mm F1.8) not covered by Canon. Both do a respectable job, but both are exceptions and I'm sure if Canon made these lenses they'd be a much better quality.

I think you'd be shooting yourself in the foot to go to the expense of the 7d and then cripple it with a Tamron lens.

I have this thought.. that maybe you'd be better served by something that's not a DSLR. Sometimes we go with what we know because it's comfortable and in the process skip over what 'may' be better options.

Read my latest piece called "Perfect Camera"and see if it rings any bells..

DING DONG i get the message,thank you,i have been reading your site and viewing your work,keep up the good work one day you may be as good has me,(kidding) i do like very much your photo's RACISM AMONG XPATS that's my style of photography that i would like to become better at, i will go the extra dollar and buy a top end lens,once again thanks for all the replies

[astral]

Sigma's covers a range (12-24mm) not covered by Canon

Canon has the 10-22mm in the EF-s range.

A very nice lens for wide work

with little noticeable distortion.

[BangkokImages]

thank you all for the advice, these canon lenses like the 17 55 the reviews rank them top quality with a price to match,, would it be wise to buy say tamron (ie 17 50) seems to do the same job but for a fraction of the cost,,? or would this compromise the quality I'm looking for,,

It is very rare when anything does the "same" job as something that's a fraction of the price.. but it does happen.

I can tell you that out of 30 lenses currently sitting in my equipment room.. 2 are Sigma's and all the rest are Canon's. One of the Sigma's covers a range (12-24mm) not covered by Canon, and the other covers a range/aperture (20mm F1.8) not covered by Canon. Both do a respectable job, but both are exceptions and I'm sure if Canon made these lenses they'd be a much better quality.

I think you'd be shooting yourself in the foot to go to the expense of the 7d and then cripple it with a Tamron lens.

I have this thought.. that maybe you'd be better served by something that's not a DSLR. Sometimes we go with what we know because it's comfortable and in the process skip over what 'may' be better options.

Read my latest piece called "Perfect Camera"and see if it rings any bells..

DING DONG i get the message,thank you,i have been reading your site and viewing your work,keep up the good work one day you may be as good has me,(kidding) i do like very much your photo's RACISM AMONG XPATS that's my style of photography that i would like to become better at, i will go the extra dollar and buy a top end lens,once again thanks for all the replies

I hope it helps.

I always list the EXFIL data under the images on my site and you can see most of those in that piece were taken with the 70-200mm F2.8L IS.. I was in Yala covering some events and while it wasn't my first choice for this type of shot, the lens worked out well. The 70-200mm F4L IS is probably a more practical choice for you, certainly less expensive, and pundits argue which lens (70-200mm F2.8L IS or 70-200mm F4L IS) gives the best optical quality.. which totally disregards the real reason for a f2.8 lens.. but I digress.. Another of those was with the 85mm F1.2L.. a specialist lens which is both pricey and difficult to use correctly. For a crop frame camera and what you like to do, the 17-55mm F2.8 IS and the 70-200mm F4 IS would be hard to beat..

[BangkokImages]

Sigma's covers a range (12-24mm) not covered by Canon

Canon has the 10-22mm in the EF-s range.

A very nice lens for wide work

with little noticeable distortion.

Thanks for the suggestion.

The 10-22mm is an EF-S lens as you point out, which makes it a 16mm on it's widest end in 135mm equiv.. and then you're still stuck with a crop frame sensor image and resulting quality.

And it is a decent quality, but the Sigma 12-24mm is optically superior from F8 and smaller (F11, f16, f22) to the 10-22 and everything else Canon makes. I have the 17-40 and 16-35 as well.. wide angle is one of my favorite areas. I also have adapters so I can use the Zuiko 18mm and 21mm's and the Zeiss 21mm.. All appropriate for certain exact types of work.

But the 12mm view (vastly different from a 16mm view) on a full size sensor camera.. is unequaled. Used properly you'll be rewarded with images you just can't get otherwise. Fun images.

And it's pretty good at the 24mm end too.

When I need wide angle for events, weddings, etc.. I use the 16-35.. For more general work in better light most would be better served by the lesser expensive 17-40..

And in really dark places, like inside certain temples, caves, etc.. that's where the 20mm F1.8 Sigma comes into play. A very capable lens which is always in my bag because there are a lot of such places in Thailand..