| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/03/2004 11:59:01 AM · #1 |
I bought the Digital Rebel Kit, so I have the 18-55mm lens and then I have 75-300mm and an 80-200mm lens. That leaves me with a pretty big gap, considering that the kit lens on the Rebel IS 55mm and the other lens's focal lens on the Rebel is really 120mm. I'm thinking of buying a lens to fill the gap. I'm torn between a Canon and a Sigma, and I'm leaning towards the Sigma. What do you guys think? Has anyone had the opportunity to use either one of these lenses?
June
Edit: I just realized I mispelled lens on the title
Message edited by author 2004-06-03 12:02:15.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:10:17 PM · #2 |
Hey June,
I was looking at your choices. While I personally don't have either lens I went looking to see if there was anything else available. I noticed that Sigma a 28-105mm lens and it is priced the same as the Canon you're looking at. It is also faster at the wider end with an f2.8. It is still a faster lens zoomed in as well. I don't know if that is a concern for you but I like to have as fast of a lens as possible just in case.Check it out |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:12:58 PM · #3 |
Actually, the 18-55 on the Rebel converts to roughly a 29-88. That leaves you a hole from 88-120. If you get a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter for about $80 (cheaper used if you can find one), your 18-55 becomes roughly a 40-123, filling in your 88-120 hole (but you do loose 1 stop along the way). It takes up less space in your bag than another lens.
A warning, though, there is word that the Rebel has difficulty autofocusing above f5.6. I haven't had the problem, but it can occur. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:18:00 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
A warning, though, there is word that the Rebel has difficulty autofocusing above f5.6. I haven't had the problem, but it can occur. |
Have never had that problem unless maybe in telephoto (above 100 or 150mm). |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:19:17 PM · #5 |
Well, I was under the impression that since the 18-55 was designed specifically for the Digital Rebel, the numbers you see are the numbers you get. You can't use this lense on a 35mm camera, it wouldn't fill the frame. So, unless I completely misunderstood, as far as the Digital Rebel goes, 18-55 is in fact, 18-55.
June
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:21:08 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by jimmyn4:
Hey June,
I was looking at your choices. While I personally don't have either lens I went looking to see if there was anything else available. I noticed that Sigma a 28-105mm lens and it is priced the same as the Canon you're looking at. It is also faster at the wider end with an f2.8. It is still a faster lens zoomed in as well. I don't know if that is a concern for you but I like to have as fast of a lens as possible just in case.Check it out |
Thanks, that is a much better option I think.
June
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:22:49 PM · #7 |
I have just returned a used Sigma 70-300 (bought from a 300d owner) as it had not been rechipped and would only work at full zoom. Nomatter, I got myself a 75-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM , I like it. I am also awaiting delivery of the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
I think the IS should compensate for not being as fast as the sigma?? and was saving up for this but saw it at 7dayshop more than £100 less than Jessops.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:24:32 PM · #8 |
| A teleconverter is nice if you don't mind slowing your lens down but I think thats a bad idea. I'd only use a teleconverter for a lens with some reach not a 18-55mm lens. That's just me though. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:44:10 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
Well, I was under the impression that since the 18-55 was designed specifically for the Digital Rebel, the numbers you see are the numbers you get. You can't use this lense on a 35mm camera, it wouldn't fill the frame. So, unless I completely misunderstood, as far as the Digital Rebel goes, 18-55 is in fact, 18-55.
June |
That would make a lot of sense, June, but I'm pretty certain that to remain consistent, they left the numbers the same. So the 18-55 really is about 28-88. I've confirmed this by comparing my 18-55 with my 17-40L, you can see here that the focal length for the two at the short end is really similar (meaning they are both are 28mm)
-Will
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:46:49 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
Actually, the 18-55 on the Rebel converts to roughly a 29-88. That leaves you a hole from 88-120. If you get a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter for about $80 (cheaper used if you can find one), your 18-55 becomes roughly a 40-123, filling in your 88-120 hole (but you do loose 1 stop along the way). It takes up less space in your bag than another lens. |
I would definitely recommend against putting a TC behind the 18-55, not to mention most medium to low-end lenses. Certainly in the 18-55's case the quality isn't stunning in the first place, and a TC will degrade quality further.
To answer your question, chiqui74....
I have an 18-55 and a 75-300.. The first thing I'd say is that in reality, there isn't a great deal of coverage you don't have already. On my last trip to the US I took my 18-55 and 75-300 (and a fixed 85), and I didn't notice a lack of coverage.
I do have a Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX, which I mainly got indoor sports where I needed f/2.8. Because I now have such an overlap I rarely use the 28-70, and don't take it on holiday because it's too heavy and I take a smaller camera bag.
That said, I've heard a lot of people say the 28-135 is a pretty nice lens. Looking at the Sigma, I can imagine, since it isn't in their EX range, it will be significantly slower in focusing than the 28-135. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 01:11:45 PM · #11 |
| Okay, I take back what I said about adding the TC to the 18-55. My bad. |
|
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: 09/11/2025 08:39:29 AM EDT.
