So the brick i just bought is 'lacking' compared to the Ziess and Nikor? :(

and i've seen great reviews on that Tokina UWA for the APS-C's...looks like a great third party lens.

Yeah, the canon is the oldest design. It's fine on a 5DmkII, but due to the pixel density of the 50D or 7D, you'll notice that it could be better on the latter two bodies. It's a bit less sharp than the Nikon, and flares a bit more. The Sony is the sharpest of the three, but to me, it seems as if Zeiss sacrificed some bokeh quality for ultimate sharpness. I did a test shot with the Zeiss on a A900 body, and it is absolutely amazing, but the bokeh isn't as smooth & creamy as the canon & Nikon. The Nikon is probably the best balanced one, but there are rumours of a new Canon 24-70 IS, which should be much better.

Yup, just read up on those 2 lenses...they look pretty damn good!

but geez, the cost of the Nikkor is up there at $2G's USD. ouch!

i'm thinking of going with a full frame body in the future, hence why i purchased the 24-70 in the meantime over the 17-55 EFS lens. :)

seems like a lot of people are happy with the Canon so i feel it's a safe bet. however, an IS version is probably going to hit the markets in the near future i'm thinking as well, but that should bring the price up quite a bit as well (add another 400bux?).

What do you think of Leica lenses? their image quality looks great from the sample pics i've seen so far.

Leica and Zeiss lenses are on an entirely different level from Canon/Nikon/non-Zeiss Sony. Contrast, colour, sharpness, resolution & detail rendition are miles ahead. There's a reason why my Leica 35mm f1.4 cost $4500 vs. the Canon 35mm f1.4, which only costs $1500.

wondering if i should change my tamron 17-50mm to the nikon 17-55mm

havent played with the nikon but the photos ppl put out with it seem to have better colours / contrast? sharpess is the same

The Nikon has more contrast and should be sharper.

I need some input for my next walk-around lens, other then the 18-55 kit lens that i have.
I'm thinking of a 17-85, what do you all think?

My 40D came with the EF-S 17-85 IS USM, and I like it! :thumbup: For something packaged as a kit lens, it's pretty clean, and a good complement to my older EF 75-300 - nice to have a little overlap rather than a 20mm gap (I had the 18-55 with my 300D).

Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro

Any one have experience with it?

i had a 17-85 and sold it about a month ago.

you'll find that it's very soft from the 17-50 range. they're not too bad in the used market (price wise, as i find the BNIB prices to be rediculous).

focal range is great for a walk around lens though. :)

It's okay, nowhere near as good as the Nikon 105 VR or Canon 100 IS.

Tamron has just announced a 17-50mm f2.8 IS/VR, shipping immediately.

^interesting...i wonder how it is, compared to the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS?

i played with the tamron in japan a few weeks ago. quite impressed but it's weakest point is at 17mm in terms of corner sharpness. then again, it's best bang for the buck

Not sure, but the new Canon 15-85mm is insane sharp.

what's a decent budget walk around lens for canon? any suggestions? shooting a xsi.

Tamron 17-50mm

true, i've seen some pretty nice sample pics on POTN as well...but the cost is the only downside IMO.

got a 17-55. love it.

17-55 2.8is or 17-40 L for my rebel xt? feel like finally upgrading the kit lens...

17-55 for the extra stop of light.

is there a big difference in the sharpness of the two lens?

Body: Canon Rebel T1i
Current lens: EF-S 18-55mm IS Kit lens

For sure I want to get the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II

But now, here is my dilemma! I'm stuck between a few lenses. I don't want to be spending over $900 after taxes. So here are my options (if there is something better, please recommend it)

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS + Canon EF 28mm f2.8
OR
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM
OR even this one...
Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM I'm really leaning towards this lens though

The 17-40 is sharper IIRC by a little bit.

I'd personally get the 70-200 f4, but it all comes down to what your needs are.

Vietfx, i ran into the same dilemma when i was new to photography as well. I wanted more reach then what my kit lens gave me. Even tho it was a fine first lens. If i was you i'd pick up a used 50mm 1.8 and get the 70-200 f4. It might seem like alot more money, but its a worth while investment. There is one for sale in the classifieds here on revscene, and its a decent price too. Those other two lenses won't give you, what the 70-200 F4 will. As well if you pick up the L, if you wanted you could basically sell it for the same price that you got it for. Its a good choice.

In my personal experiance, super zooms like all the 18-200's are convient but not that great. I always like to think, a lens that less is alot more then a lens that does alot.