| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2010 09:30:00 PM · #1 |
| Ok, so there are 2 completely different lenses that I want, but only enough money for one. They are the sigma 10-20mm and Canon 70-200mm f4 usm. Both are pretty close in price. My only 2 lenses at the moment are the Tamrom 17-55mm and canon 50mm 1.8. should I go for the sigma, which would cover my wide range, or the canon which would cover my telephoto range. I like doing landscape photography, but Id also like something for taking shots of wildlife, and doing candid shots around town (giving me the range, to be far away from my subject(dont like taking peoples pictures up close. )There is an air show coming up in august, would the 70-200 be far enough to be of any use there? Anyone wanna give me $600 so I can just buy both :D |
|
|
|
03/09/2010 09:33:28 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
03/09/2010 09:36:23 PM · #3 |
| Ya, I was already starting to lean that direction when I hit submit. the 17-55 is decent for landscape (though it doesn't go nearly wide enough), but I have nothing for the longer ranges. I think ill get the 70-200, and save up for the sigma. Or maybe save up for the canon 10-22mm. Just not sure if its worth the extra $300 for the canon over the sigma. |
|
|
|
03/09/2010 09:42:35 PM · #4 |
Sigma 10 - 20 is a great lense for the money, I have the Nikon version but I don't think there is much of a difference. I like wildlife shots and landscapes and I have a telephoto aswell but I personally use the 10-20 way more. Depends on what you think you will use more often.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2010 10:13:16 PM · #5 |
If you can afford the Canon 70-200 you can afford the Canon 10-22, which is a better lens than the sigma 10-20...
You have to make a choice: are you a wide guy or a long guy? For me it's the ide lens hands down. I use it 10x as much as my 70-200... But that's just me.
R. |
|
|
|
03/09/2010 10:33:12 PM · #6 |
70-200 isn't much for wildlife... You'd be much happier with something that went at least to 300 or 400. So if you want a longer lens for wildlife, I'd hold off until you can get something bigger and get the 10-22 now. If it's just for sports or around town, then I'd go 70-200.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2010 11:00:30 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
70-200 isn't much for wildlife... You'd be much happier with something that went at least to 300 or 400. So if you want a longer lens for wildlife, I'd hold off until you can get something bigger and get the 10-22 now. If it's just for sports or around town, then I'd go 70-200. |
I agree with Wendy about the wildlife shooting. I use an old manual 300 f4.5 for most of my wildlife, and find that it is barely long enough to allow me to shoot without being close enough to spook the birds and critters. Look in your image files, and see which end of the 17-55 you seem to be using the more often, and go that direction.
You will probably end up eventually getting both the wide and tele if you are going to keep shooting.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2010 11:43:06 PM · #8 |
Here's something to consider: if you haven't experienced ultra-wide before, there's no way to describe how it changes your seeing, and there's no substitute for it. You CAN, on the other hand, experience extreme telephoto, albeit at some loss of quality, by using extreme crop. So at least as far as the long lens goes, take a shot at 55mm and crop it to 25% and you'll have a good idea what's in store, framing-wise, with the 70/200mm...
R. |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 01:39:03 AM · #9 |
| I guess instead of 'Wildlife', i should have said "animals at the zoo", lol. So distance isn't really a huge deal. Id also use it for sports events, and the race track and around town. Man, i wish I had enough money for both, as im sure ill use both about the same amount. |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 03:01:25 AM · #10 |
Have you looked around for some good used ones, perhaps you can get lucky and have both for a reasonable price...
Originally posted by kawana:
I guess instead of 'Wildlife', i should have said "animals at the zoo", lol. So distance isn't really a huge deal. Id also use it for sports events, and the race track and around town. Man, i wish I had enough money for both, as im sure ill use both about the same amount. |
|
|
|
|
03/11/2010 03:01:33 AM · #11 |
70-200 all the way.
If you upgrade to full frame, it will still fit, and if you decide to sell it it will retain it's value a lot better than the sigma.
It's also a great focal length. |
|
|
|
03/11/2010 03:15:19 AM · #12 |
| If you are going to use either one the same frequency..def go for the 70-200. i tend to think that you would be using this lens a lot more. However, dont think it would be good enough for an airshow. You will only be frustrated on flying shots - depending on distance from aircraft fly-bys. With the strict regulations at airshows now they tend to turn and fly away from crowds. At the zoo it's perfect. Enjoy your purchase...aint it nice to get new toys... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/25/2025 02:24:08 PM EST.
