| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2005 06:02:52 AM · #1 |
Hi,
I would like to ask you to help me what lens should I buy as first upgrade of my Canon 350D with 18-55 Kit lens? I'm looking for some telephoto & wide angle lens like Sigma 18-125, but I would like some fast lens. Please suggest.
Thanking in advance!
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 06:04:21.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 06:16:02 AM · #2 |
The Tamron 17-35 is wonderful - pin-sharp, accurate, and I love it, and not too expensive.
I like the Sigma 30mm 1.4 also - not as sharp, but the bokeh is great, which is an issue with an aperture of 1.4. It's also a much more natural field of view than the 50mm on your camera.
I'm interested in the Tamron 18-200, but haven't really found many reports of it yet - if the quality is anything like my 17-35 then it might be the next thing, though it isn't so bright.
e |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 08:47:25 AM · #3 |
| The quality of the 18-200 is nothing like the 17-35. If you want something like that go with the 28-75 as it's an awesome lens. For the OP, you could consider the Tamron 24-135 as it gives a reasonable amount of wide angle and is a good walk around lens (and it's a giant step above the 18-55). The reviews on this lens are excellent (it's just not that fast). If you want fast the 28-75 XR is awesome (f/2.8) but the range is kind of limiting...but there's always a compromise. I decided I liked the speed more than the range so I'm selling my Tamron 24-135 (brand new, see other post if interested or PM me). |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:43:36 PM · #4 |
Do you have a budget and what you'd be using the lens for?
If you are looking for a wide angle and a telephoto, you may be better off looking at two zooms vs one like Sigma 18-125 as it has more distortions and is slower than a wide angle only zoom or a telephoto zoom. Plus, 125mm is not much of a zoom.
I'd suggest considering the following:
Ultrawides:
Canon 10-22: great lens, but expensive
Sigma 10-20: not as sharp as Canon but much cheaper, a great buy in my opinion
Wides:
Tamron 17-35: Great lens and sharp. It's fast at the wide end as well
Canon 17-40L, sharp lens, but not fast at f4, more expensive than Tamron
Sigma 17-35: rates very well by Popular Photography.
Telephotos:
Sigma 70-300 APO DG: Great from 70-200, ok at 300, great price
Canon 70-300IS: Expensive but great optics and has IS
Canon 70-200 f4 or f2.8: the 2.8 version is more expensive but it's faster and sharper. My favorite zoom lens.
Sigma 70-200 EX: Price comes between the Canon f4 and f2.8 version, another nice option
Good luck
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 12:44:20.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:46:10 PM · #5 |
personally I wouldn't waste the money. I'd go straight for the EF 24-70 f2.8 USM. A lense you cannot go wrong with and worth the money. You should be able to buy it on ebay for around $1000-$1200can.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:07:36 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by notonline:
personally I wouldn't waste the money. I'd go straight for the EF 24-70 f2.8 USM. A lense you cannot go wrong with and worth the money. You should be able to buy it on ebay for around $1000-$1200can. |
On a 1.6 crop camera, which is what he's using, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is the equal of the Canon 24-70 at a fraction of the cost, and it's smaller and lighter as well. After I got my Tammy a friend nearby put his 24-70 canon up for sale and I had a chance to buy it for $800. I brought it home and tested it, saw no reason whatsoever to change, and gave it back.
Robt. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:29:28 PM · #7 |
Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC - replace the kit lens with fast glass just as wide. Faster and more range, just as sharp as canon's 17-40 4L for less cost.
Walkround - Tamaron 24-135 SP 3.5-5.6 is fantastic. The other good option for another $200 and less range but you add IS is canon's 17-85. I hear the Sigma 18-125 is not too bad, but but not as good as the above lenses. Both do macro.
Any 18-200 is not going to be nearly as good as any of the above lenses, and once you get good glass you won't like or use the cheap stuff anymore.
For telephoto, the Sigma 70-300 APO 4-5.6 Super 2 at $220 is an excellent value, and unless you go to the Canon 70-200 4L or Sigma 70-200 2.8 you'll be satisfied for white a while.
For me, 28-75 is not enough range on either end.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 11:55:21 PM · #8 |
Generally, people say that the wider the range on your lens, the worse it gets. This is not a major deciding factor in lenses with similar ranges (18-55 is around 3x, and the 28-75 is around 3x as well, but the two lenses do NOT compare as equals). It is more of an issue when comparing lenses with a broader span (18-55 at 3x compared to 18-125 at around 6x or 18-200 at 11x) and generally means that the wider range lenses are not going to be as good.
Most really good zoom lenses are in the 3-4x range. Anything more than that will usually fall in the class of poor (although I've heard a few people speak rather highly of the 50-500 Sigma, that may be an exception)
Be careful in wishing for a lens like the 18-125 with such a broad range.
I've seen pics taken by it that are pretty good, but a good photographer can make good things happen from even rather poor equipment.
Which brings me to my point.
You may wish to upgrade to a lens that works as an addition to your 18-55 (a rather respectable lens) and see how you feel after getting something really good.
The previously mentioned 70-200 F4 by Canon is a great place to get started.
It will give you a taste of caviar at a decent price, while still allowing you to hang on to your 18-55 for comparison.
If you really feel that the 18-55 is of such a quality that it really can't meet your needs, the switch to a 28-75 Tamron is natural and likewise inexpensive.
As you shoot, evaluate carefully which shots you really feel would be benefited by IS and which would be benefited by using a wider aperture. Depending on your preferences, there are significant advantages to using constant aperture lenses as well.
If you are a real wide-angle fiend, you will need to make room in your budget for that as well. Even 17mm on a 1.6x crop isn't all that wide.
I don't know that there is all that much a 17-XXmm lens will do that an 18-55 won't do that gives significant reason to pursuing that as an option OVER one of the new 10-22mm lenses (canon or sigma).
For these reasons, you are probably better off hanging on to that 18-55 and finding lenses around it at least for the first while. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:30:00 PM EDT.
