Top quality mid-range zoom desired: I have a Canon 60D and have upgraded recently for longer range wth a Canon 70-200mm f/4L and a 1.4 extender. Now I want a fast lens to replace the...

philz Loc: Rockaway Township NJ

I have a Canon 60D and have upgraded recently for longer range wth a Canon 70-200mm f/4L and a 1.4 extender. Now I want a fast lens to replace the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS I used a lot previously that is not wide enough on the APS-C 60D for my normal range, lower light shooting. I do have a Tamron 10-24mm for wide angle use and a Sigma 18-250mm for one lens walkaround situations when traveling and on the go, so quality for setup shooting with value is my goal. Canon is pricy of course and I can afford it but is it really better than the new higher quality offerings from Sigma and Tamron in this range?

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

philz wrote:

I have a Canon 60D and have upgraded recently for ... (show quote)

Yes, it is. The 24-70 f2.8L Mkii is your answer. It is a wonderful lens, cost notwithstanding. :thumbup: :D

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

One of the lenses I have and use is the older Tamron SP 28-105 f2.8 asphereical LD - a great lens ! About $350 when you can find one - I recommend KEH......

Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio

philz wrote:

I have a Canon 60D and have upgraded recently for ... (show quote)

Canon's 24-105 L does a pretty good job for most needs within that focal length range.

amehta Loc: Boston

philz wrote:

I have a Canon 60D and have upgraded recently for ... (show quote)

It seems that you are in the market for an APS-C f/2.8 mid-range zoom like the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, $850, or similar models from Tamron or Sigma. If you want the best image quality zoom in that general range, though, consider the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC, $800, one of Sigma's new Art-series lenses which are all quite impressive.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and the Sigma 50-150 2.8 are some more options ....

philz Loc: Rockaway Township NJ

I checked out the 24-70 f2.8L Mkii and it looks great but there is no way I will spend $2100 for a lens. The Canon 24-105 f/4L is a more affordable option especially as it is an old lens that may be available second hand a lot cheaper, but I think the 24mm is weak in IQ and not wide enough for the 60D.

This thinking leads me more to the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4, a Tamron or Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, all in a lower price range near $500, or perhaps the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for a lot more (currently $879 at B&H). The Canon may or may not be worth it. Any advice on that?

Haydon

lukan wrote:

Yes, it is. The 24-70 f2.8L Mkii is your answer. It is a wonderful lens, cost notwithstanding. :thumbup: :D

I agree with lukan. i own this lens and the color rendition and clarity is second to none. There is absolutely no CA present whereas the Tamron suffers in this category. The 24-70L II is the only lens that I don't sharpen in post. It's noted to be as sharp as primes within its focal range.

Admittedly is very expensive but if patient, you will find this lens on sale likely between Thanksgiving and Christmas with substantial savings. I bought mine last year at Christmas for $1650.00.

Some see this lens as unserving because of the lack of IS. Personally I find with shooting wide open the along with using the appropriate ISO as a solution under low light conditions.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Sigma 17-70 dovetails perfectly with the 70-200 - I also have and use these two lenses also ....

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

philz wrote:

perhaps the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for a lot more (currently $879 at B&H). The Canon may or may not be worth it. Any advice on that?

Philz, whatever you end up considering, DO look at used ones, NOT because I think you should buy one, but so you can see how well they DO, or DON'T hold their values.
I know ALL good Canon lenses hold VERY high resale should you ever decide you need to move in another direction and need to sell that gear.
Also Canon sells all of their lenses as refurbs as well on its site.
Just another thing to consider. ;-)
SS

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

philz wrote:

I have a Canon 60D and have upgraded recently for ... (show quote)

The 28-135 is a good quality lens and it was a favorite of the late Monte Zucker, the wedding photographer. I agree with you that it is not wide enough for wide angle photography with your camera.
Do you have any issues with quality when using the Sigma 10-24? I never used one but I have heard very good things about it although I am sure you know that using an extreme wide angle requires coming closer to the subject.
I believe that you are pretty well set up for the type of photography you could have in mind with what you have right now.

danrob

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens is worth your consideration. I've had one for several years and used it with both a Canon 30D and 60D and have been very pleased with the results. The constant 2.8 has been wonderful. There is a VC version of this lens, but most reviews indicate that the NON-VC is the sharper lens. It also comes with an excellent 6-year warranty.

danrob

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens is worth your consideration. I've had one for several years and used it with both a Canon 30D and 60D and have been very pleased with the results. The constant 2.8 has been wonderful. There is a VC version of this lens, but most reviews indicate that the NON-VC is the sharper lens. It also comes with an excellent 6-year warranty.

zincgt Loc: Tucson AZ

I have the Sigma 17-50mm fixed f2.8 with OS (Optical Stabilization) and this has been an excellent lens for me anyway. Probably 60% of outdoor shots. Inside without flash tends to have a bit of CA near natural light like windows. 35mm equivalent is 27mm-80mm.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

zincgt wrote:

I have the Sigma 17-50mm fixed f2.8 with OS (Optical Stabilization) and this has been an excellent lens for me anyway. Probably 60% of outdoor shots. Inside without flash tends to have a bit of CA near natural light like windows. 35mm equivalent is 27mm-80mm.

People forget that that lens was considered one of the best lenses you could get for the APS-C cameras, the older version without the optical stabilization actually tests better in lab tests, it is every bit as good as the canon 17-55 at just a little more than 1/2 the price.