Which medium range zoom

Let me start by saying:
1- I'm a minimalist
2- I like versatility
3- I don't have a ton of $$$$$ to spend on a lens

I'm shooting with a Canon EOS-10D in an Ike housing with the 8" port.

My primary lens has been the Sigma DC 10-125. I like being able to shoot wide and macro on the same dive.

I just recently got the Sigma 10-20mm, but haven't gotten it wet yet.

I just found out that my other lens, a Tamron XR Di 28-300mm will actually fit in my housing, even with the zoom ring. It’s kind of a waste having 2 lenses with VERY big overlapping focal ranges. In the time I’ve had it, I’ve very rarely zoomed the Tamron all the way to 300. So what I’m thinking is dump both lenses and replace them with a single lens.

The 2 lenses I’m considering right now are:
Tamron Di II 18-250mm
(similar specs to the 28-300, but specifically for smaller sensors, and it‘s not an XR lens: not even sure what that really means) it also has some pretty good reviews

Sigma DC 19-200mm
(similar specs to the 18-125, which I’ve been happy with so far)

Any opinions?
Please, no Sigma/Tamron haters, unless you’ve specifically used one of these lenses and have REAL feedback on that specific model.

I have the older model 18-200 Sigma and think it's a great lens. I think the newer version is even nicer.

It isn't one I'd use underwater specifically, though I have and it's fine. If you're looking for that lens to work on land and uw, it might be a good option.

You would have to figure out any limitations it has in the dome port (for instance, it may need a dioptre) - I used mine in my 100 macro port and simply sacrificed the wide end beyond 24mm.

Personally, for uw work, I'd head for the Sigma 17-70 macro. The reach uw with the longer lens doesn't gain you anything - underwater it's all about getting closer. And having a fairly good reproduction ratio is worth more to me. This thing will focus pretty much on the port, too, so getting close isn't an issue. The range is well suited to uw, imho - it's amazing the variety you can get on a single dive with this lens.

I almost never take my 18-200 out of the box anymore. The 17-70 lives on my camera.

Digital cameras, canon digital cameras, sigma digital cameras, digital camera accessories, hoya filters often has the best prices.

hth

Well I have to use the diopters on my 18-125 anyway.

I figured the 18-200 would do the same job as the current lens, but with some more zoom for shooting on land.

I'm really liking that 17-70, though. I bet with some fishengiling I could even get the zoom ring to fit on it.

Damn I may need to get both!!! So much for saving $$$ and space in my bag.

The Sigma 17-70mm macro is a very versatile lens - it will do both wide angle and macro. Quite impresssive is that it will maintain the 1:2.3 magnification and f/2.8 throughout the whole focal range. However, keep in mind that at 1:2.3, you're not going to be getting as much of a magnification factor as with a dedicated macro lens like the 60mm, which will do 1:1, so this is a bit of a trade off. However, vignetting may be a concern when shooting wide out at 17mm with the aperature all the way open at f/2.8. I would check this out first to see if it is acceptable if you plan on shooting a lot of wide angle. If you're in clear water with lots of light, shooting at f/2.8 may not be much of an issue, so it really depends on what conditions you're going to be shooting in.

I like that it goes wide enough, to do wide angle on the same dive, but I'll probably primarily use it for macro, since I just picked up a 10-20mm.

It's really then a trade off between the flexibility of the zoom/macro at 1:2.3 and a dedicated macro at 1:1. If you're going to be shooting a lot of macro, you need to figure out if you're going to be ok with a magnification of only 1:2.3.

If your goal is macro, head for the 60 if you want a bit of flexibility for critter size and the 100 if that isn't so much of a concern. Both are excellent lenses and you'll end up with them both eventually most likely

Alinca,
What port/s have you used with the 17-70mm

alcina:

If your goal is macro, head for the 60 if you want a bit of flexibility for critter size and the 100 if that isn't so much of a concern. Both are excellent lenses and you'll end up with them both eventually most likely

Click to expand...

Yeah I'm leaning towards the 100 now. Now the issue isn't getting all these lenses to fit in my bag...it's making room for another port in the Peli case. DAMN!!!

What about a 70 macro?
Kind of in between the 2.

If you want flex and don't need 1:1, get the 17-70. I use it behind my big Subal dome.

I wouldn't bother with any other macro in this range - these are two of the best lenses out there and anything else would just make me wish I'd gone with the real thing first up.

I can't get the 60. It's an EF-S lens (won't work with the 10D).

That's why I was thinking the Sigma 50 or 70, with the smaller sensor in the 10D, would be the equivalent of a 80mm and 112mm. Leaning towards the 50mm.