What 18-50 lens to go for... (for canon 400d)

Howitzer

Hi there,

I'm just looking through lens reviews at the moment with a view to getting rid of my existing kit lens. (non-is 18-55 canon ef-s)

Just a general question first:

What do you reckon would be better for the budget conscious photographer...

a) to buy a 18-55 3.5/5.6 image stabalized kit lens (that comes with the 450d - and does great good reviews for its optical performance - despite any snobbery against it)

or

b) add about €150 more and get a f2.8 all the way 18-55 lens?

c) something else from the list below.

Essentially - is a faster lens better than an image stabilized slower lens?
Would you ever want both lenses mentioned above?

Now for the specifics:
I'm looking at (in no order)-

Sigma 18-50 2.8 macro

Sigma 18-50 non macro

Tamron 17-50 2.8

Sigma 17-70 2.8/4.5

Canon 17-55 2.8 IS (bank buster!)

Canon 18-55 3.5/5.6 IS

If anyone has any feedback on these - I'd love to hear it!

silverside

i got the 18-55 IS with my 450d and i didnt think it was great (in comparison to the 50 1.8 prime) - i read a lot of reviews and went for the Sigma 17-70 (which i got for under 200 euro secondhand) in preference to the Canon 17-85 IS.

at short focal lengths i dont think IS is so crucial (remember the "minimum shutter speed = focal length" rule of thumb).

pete4130

I had the Sigma 18-50 2.8 macro on my D200 and it was possibly one of the best lenses I've ever owned. Close focus, the macro isn't really true macro as even at 50mm it's still quite wide but I really miss how close that lens could focus. It was sharp, fast focusing, never and flare/glare I noticed.
Thats my personal experience with it. I know a few other people have it here too and love it.

decimal

The tamron 2.8, great IQ, fast and great reviews everywhere for it. I bought it with my 40D, skipped out on the kit lens and won't be replacing it until I go for an L lens.

Borderfox

I had the Sigma 18-50 f2.8EX and it was a superb lens

Howitzer

Right I've nearly decided...

It's between:
Tamron 17-50 2.8

Pros: 2.8 all the way, low CA (sigma v.high CA), can freeze movement in low light shots.

Sigma 17-70 2.8/4.5
Pros: semi-macro, longer range by 20mm, good IQ
Con: 2.8 that attracts me is only as follows:
17-20mm f/2.8
21-24mm f/3.2
24-34mm f/3.5
35-54mm f/4.0
55-70mm f/4.5

I'll be using this lense for everything! Street photography, birthday parties etc. I was a Johnnie foxes recently and didn't get great shots of the show - not enough light. Maybe a 2.8 lens would be the winner here?

Or that extra 20mm and a bit of macro fun?

helpppppp???!! ;-) (tough decisions we lucky people have eh?)

Borderfox

Full f2.8 everytime