Lens for Trip - DPChallenge Forums

06/21/2005 07:23:49 PM · #1

Towards the end of this year, I'm going to Hawaii for about two weeks. I'm beginning to think of items that I will want or need to save up to buy for the trip. One of them is an upgrade from my kit lens to a good quality landscape and walk-around lens. I am also looking at a lens that would work well in low light. What I've been looking at are lenses such as the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L USM, the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG HSM and the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD. My original preference is the Canon because I have heard such great things about it and would love to acquire my first L lens, but today I recieved my massive B&H SLR catalog and while looking through the lens specs, I noticed how much more narrow the angle of view of the Canon was than the Sigma and Tamron. I was wondering how much of a difference 30Âº can make on the same mm lens. So if any of you have any experience with any of these three lenses, I would greatly appreciate what you have to say.

Thank you
Robert

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/21/2005 07:33:35 PM · #2

Sigma 24-60 f2.8

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/21/2005 09:29:56 PM · #3

is that wide enough for landscapes? I was planning on using the lens to photograph the islands and the volcanoes. i dont think i can make it with a 24

CorySmith

06/21/2005 09:36:18 PM · #4

go for the L man, spend the extra buck, its worth it
although F4 isnt good enough for low light, but ide bring a tripid with you if you plan on shooting in low light

Message edited by author 2005-06-21 22:08:15.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

06/21/2005 09:36:25 PM · #5

I'd also think long term if I were you. That's a lot of money to spend if you aren't sure you need a really wide lens. Do you normally use the 17 to 28mm-ish range?

I just got back from Maui armed only with a 28 prime and 50 prime and I got every shot I wanted (if anything, i needed a longer lens, not a wider one). I use the 28mm 2.8 about 85% of the time.

But if you like the wide angle lens normally .. then ignore me :)

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

06/21/2005 09:37:58 PM · #6

also ... since getting back, I've purchased the 28-135mm IS - and I have to admit I wish I had it in Hawaii .... I can't believe how much I like this lens.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

06/21/2005 09:46:34 PM · #7

I bought the older version of the Sigma 17-35 used for just under $300 and am very happy with it. Have only had a couple of occasions to use it as I am really not used to all that space. In July I'm going to New Mexico - the reason I bought it. Its very fast compared to my other lenses and I couldn't beat the price.
keh.com
d

06/21/2005 09:57:52 PM · #8

Originally posted by hopper:

I'd also think long term if I were you. That's a lot of money to spend if you aren't sure you need a really wide lens. Do you normally use the 17 to 28mm-ish range?

I find myself shooting wide open with my kitlens alot when I am out taking pics. Also, this would be my walkaround lens for a very very long time, and I frequently find myself in the city in a crowd with an interesting character right next to me. I usually go wide.

The only other lens I currently own besides the kit lens is my Sigma 70-300 but I plan on filling the gap a some point with either a lens like the tamron 28-75 2.8 or stick with usuing an ultra-wide zoom, the canon 50mm 1.8 and my sigma. I just think I will find myself looking more for landscape shots while I am there (and at home). Thats my only reason for not getting a lens such as a 28-105 or even one of the sigma 18-125 or 18-200.