Replace the KM 17-35 F2.8-4 D, with what?

[[SiC]]

I pretty happy with the lens but quite often feel it's a bit short... So in due time (when I stack up a big enough money pile) I'm thinking of replacing it with something else.
As of today the lenses I think of are:

- Sony AF DT 18-70/3,5-5,6 (actually, this one is so cheap to buy used so it's not really considered as an alternative, I might just buy one anyway...)
- Zeiss Vario Sonnar T* DT 16-80/3,5-4,5 (or not... too pricey I'm afraid )
- Tamron SP AF 17-50/2,8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (wow, the name alone intimidates... but I like that it is a "true" f/2.8 - a bit short still though)
- Sigma 17-70/2,8-4,5 DC Asp IF Macro (I like the range, but not the f/4.5 at the long end)
- Sigma EX 18-50/2,8 DC Macro (also a bit short, and will I possibly miss the extra mm in the short end?)

Please share your thoughts, maybe some of you have done this swap already and have a bit of advice?

Thanx in advance!

BR,
/Zeb!

[01af]

The lens you're looking for doesn't exist. And even if it did you weren't able to afford it. The closest to what you want seem to be the Sigma 17-70 DC and the SAL DT 16-80 Z.

-- Olaf

[[SiC]]

The lens you're looking for doesn't exist. And even if it did you weren't able to afford it. The closest to what you want seem to be the Sigma 17-70 DC and the SAL DT 16-80 Z.

-- Olaf

Ok, fair enough.
If I settle for a "short" lens then, between:
- Tamron SP AF 17-50/2,8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF)
- Sigma EX 18-50/2,8 DC Macro

Which one would you prefer, and why? The Tamron is obviously a bit wider (at least on paper).

Thanx again!

BR,
/Zeb!

[Javelin]

How about the Sony 16-105 or is that too slow ?

[01af]

If I settle for a "short" lens ...

Okay, so you prefer lens speed over focal range. Personally I feel that in a zoom lens, focal range is more useful than speed ... but that's only me.

I cannot say anything about the 17-50/2.8 or 18-50/2.8 Tamron and Sigma lenses. From hearsay it seems to me the Tamron has a somewhat better reputation ... but no personal experience or hard facts here. Sorry.

-- Olaf

[Greg Beetham]

I pretty happy with the lens but quite often feel it's a bit short... So in due time (when I stack up a big enough money pile) I'm thinking of replacing it with something else.
As of today the lenses I think of are:

- Sony AF DT 18-70/3,5-5,6 (actually, this one is so cheap to buy used so it's not really considered as an alternative, I might just buy one anyway...)
- Zeiss Vario Sonnar T* DT 16-80/3,5-4,5 (or not... too pricey I'm afraid )
- Tamron SP AF 17-50/2,8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (wow, the name alone intimidates... but I like that it is a "true" f/2.8 - a bit short still though)
- Sigma 17-70/2,8-4,5 DC Asp IF Macro (I like the range, but not the f/4.5 at the long end)
- Sigma EX 18-50/2,8 DC Macro (also a bit short, and will I possibly miss the extra mm in the short end?)

Please share your thoughts, maybe some of you have done this swap already and have a bit of advice?

Thanx in advance!

BR,
/Zeb!

I have one of those and I don't think I'd part with it in a hurry as it does film, APS-C and presumably will work on the coming FF digital, weras all the lenses you list are only good for APS-C, the 17-35 is a good pair with the KM28-75 f2.8 (also film APS-C and FF digital). There is a good argument that a lens specifically for APS-C has a more effective use of glass for the smaller format...as long as you only want too stay with that format in the future, then my first choice would be the CZ16-80 for sure, also would have too consider the Sigma 17-70 but would have to do research on that one, reviews etc.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

Don't sell the 17-35mm until we know how well they work on full frame!

The Sigma 18-50mm has a reputation for back focus problems on Alpha bodies. The Tamron 17-50mm is not quite as good optically but appears to be more compatible with the AF system. Both these lenses are the only options you have for wider maximum apertures, as with the Sigma 17-70mm and all the other lenses, the f/2.8 or f/3.5 at the short end VERY quickly becomes f/4 and then f/4.5. But the same applies to the 17-35mm. It is only really f/2.8 at 17mm - f3.2 at 20mm - f/3.5 at 25mm - f/4 at 30mm. This is a good smooth slope, compared to the wider range zooms which lose their maximum aperture suddenly and sharply.

David

[KevinBarrett]

I just opted for the Tamron 17-50 to replace my Sony 18-70 and was very pleased with the zoom range. The wide end is considerably more usable as an indoor lens, especially combined with the speed. I didn't find myself wanting more on the long end, and the Tamron could be supplemented well with Sony's budget telephoto zoom, the 55-200, that DK recently rediscovered. On the widest end the Tamron controlled barrel distortion surprisingly well, very nice.

I should tell you that I will be returning my Tamron though, because while it is still miles ahead of the 18-70, it wasn't a great as I expected, but my standards might not be realistic, I don't know. The clencher was when I spotted a couple of tiny flaws in the coating on the front element. I would return it for another of the same lens except that my budget just increased, and I'm going for the CZ16-80.

Bottom line: It is a good fast wide zoom with a very fair price. The build is good, and so is the range. The only problem is the very great leap you must make to find anything better.

[pakodominguez]

Don't sell the 17-35mm until we know how well they work on full frame!
....
But the same applies to the 17-35mm. It is only really f/2.8 at 17mm - f3.2 at 20mm - f/3.5 at 25mm - f/4 at 30mm. This is a good smooth slope, compared to the wider range zooms which lose their maximum aperture suddenly and sharply.

David

Hey David,

I recall you didn't like this lens that much because too soft wide open. Or that remark was only when in the 7D? Mine works perfect on the A700 (same with the 7D and before with the A100) I'll have to find time to try it on FF (film) and then see what happens the day the A900 will be available -all my lenses will pass that test...

Regards

[[SiC]]

How about the Sony 16-105 or is that too slow ?

Maybe a bit slow and most probably out of my budget I'm afraid...

[KevinBarrett]

LOL...according the pictures you posted the lens sorta sucked..of course we all see that DK made it a point to make excuses for the Tamron, because he seems to be pushing the Tamron line these days.

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... 4243#p4173

Let me tell you something, my $50 18-70 kit lens looks almost as good as those $400 test images you posted do!

-Sonolta

In short, the pictures were poor due to my own lack of skill, and because I didn't know what I was doing when I tried to make a test. In real-world shooting the Tamron produced images superior to the KM/Sony 18-70, despite my lack of skill.

[David Kilpatrick]

Hey David,

I recall you didn't like this lens that much because too soft wide open. Or that remark was only when in the 7D? Mine works perfect on the A700 (same with the 7D and before with the A100) I'll have to find time to try it on FF (film) and then see what happens the day the A900 will be available -all my lenses will pass that test...

Regards

I am thinking of giving it a try again, since I adjusted the focus on my A700. It certainly looks to be focusing better. I have a couple of bank PR jobs to do tommorrow where the 17-35mm is about ideal (indoor groups), they are not mission critical for 100 per cent pixel accuracy (they just want files for the local papers) so I think it will get another look in - before it gets tried on an A900, with luck, on Tuesday.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Please disregard my recommedation of the CZ16-80, I thought the QC problems were only during the introductory stages, and after this amount of time they would have been fixed.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

My advice to anyone interested in this lens is ALWAYS to buy from a place where you can try it, or return it. What gets missed out of the reviews is the exceptional quality of image that a good example of the 16-80mm produces - something about the balance of overall and micro contrast, colour and sharpness which is just not found in any of the other kit lenses or third party options. People who have repeated problems with QC affected samples and return all of them never get to use the lens properly, and never see the difference it makes to everyday results. Also, it is much better for sharp wide open field coverage than the 16-105mm although that lens is better in build quality and has less mechanical vignetting.

So I'm in the odd position of using this lens as my main lens - all the time - and knowing that it gets excellent results, but having to tell others that they could get a lemon unless they can check the intended purchase and maybe pick an invididual lens. To get four and 'decentering' is very unusual - assuming the writer means a shifting image (moving off axis during zooming).

David

[calpon]

I'll add that I have had my Z16-80 for 11 months. I did not have to return any to get a perfect copy. I use this lens often and it still works and looks like the day it was taken out of the sealed box.
This my not mean much to any of you, but I compared the CZ to my Sony 70-200 SSM at 70-80 at identical apertures and found the CZ to my more to mike liking. It just has something that I can't explain that makes the images more 3D/realistic.