Lens question again !!! Sorry.

[Chip Nicley]

Hi guys

Choice of 3 lenses for a Canon 400D

Sigma 17-70
Sigma 18-125
Sigma 18-200 OS

The thinking is a bit lazy on my part, I would love to spend all the money to get a dedcated lens for each job however not allways the feasable route due to cost of each lens, So hopefully my question stands.

Looking for some advise

Chip

[hot-fuzz]

Speaking from experience..... save up and get a really good lens for each situation (apart from the Nifty Fifty which is about £55 NEW)

Look at the following, see what you think and save up for them ,as it WILL save you money in the future.
I sold my Sigma 70-300 + Sigma 17-70 as they werent up to the job.

Think a bout the following :

Canon 17-55 IS
Canon 17-40 L
Canon 24-105L
Canon f/4 70-200 (IS or non-IS)
Sigma 10-20

Any of that lot above will see you for the rest of your crop body life and more (in terms of the non EF-S lenses)

Trust me if you getr into this photography lark you will save moiney by buying the best NOW. Dont make the mistake i made and lose money on selling lenses.

HTH

[Holowlegs]

Hi ya Chip Nicley


I sort off agree and disagree with kinchy.

Originally Posted by kinchy

Speaking from experience..... save up and get a really good lens for each situation (apart from the Nifty Fifty which is about £55 NEW)

Very good advice and you should save up and get the best you can afford. But some of the lens he has name are quite expensive, if you can afford then well and good.

Some of use are looking for value for money, and trying to make that next step after the kit lens.



These are the lens I looked at when I went to replace the kit lens.

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC MACRO

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS



I nearly got Sigma 17-70 but in the end went for the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8. But if you only want to change the kit lens these are worth looking at.



I also read a lot on this site here


Cheers Holo

[Chip Nicley]

Wow thats some expensive lenses...But i do take on board your suggestions and understand your point about the resale value.

To be fair i don't think i could take pictures like some of the chaps on here anyway due to time and pure out and out love for photography...not yet anyhoo but im getting frisky for the hobby tho.

I would like a lens between £100 - £300 ish at this time as im still learning for a bit of portrait stuff and general shots.

Thx

Chip

[Just call me Al]

Originally Posted by Chip Nicley

Hi guys

Choice of 3 lenses for a Canon 400D

Sigma 17-70
Sigma 18-125
Sigma 18-200 OS

The thinking is a bit lazy on my part, I would love to spend all the money to get a dedcated lens for each job however not allways the feasable route due to cost of each lens, So hopefully my question stands.

Looking for some advise

Chip

Well I have the Sigma 18-200 OS & I don't think it's a waste of money. Look at any picture I've posted in the last 4 months & you won't find a shot that's not in Sharp focus, anywhere, from the 18 to 200 end.

[hot-fuzz]

You pay the extra not just for better IQ.
No lens Slide, build quality, IS to name a few. The Sigma 17-70 was a good lens, but not compared to the 17-55 IS. Its the difference between good and excellent.
And its those improvements that you need to give yourself the best oportunity to take very good photos and have hte best equipment available.

IMO

[Just call me Al]

Originally Posted by kinchy

You pay the extra not just for better IQ.
No lens Slide, build quality, IS to name a few. The Sigma 17-70 was a good lens, but not compared to the 17-55 IS. Its the difference between good and excellent.
And its those improvements that you need to give yourself the best oportunity to take very good photos and have hte best equipment available.

IMO

I have taken this from Holowlegs Cows thread that I posted in. This is the Sigma
18-200 OS. This shot was taken from a car with the engine running, at 200mm & then heavily cropped. How would one of the lenses you mention be better, (sharper, or what). Clearly there is a reason for the higher price of the other lenses, but how would I gain? This Sigma has a good build quality. As a walk around lens how would the other lenses be better?

[Strobe]

I have the Sigma 17-70 albeit not on a Canon and whilst I initially thought it a very good lens for the money, and it is, as I get more in to the photography I am starting to find its limitations now. In hindsight, I would have paid a tad more and gone for the Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

[Just call me Al]

Originally Posted by Strobe

I have the Sigma 17-70 albeit not on a Canon and whilst I initially thought it a very good lens for the money, and it is, as I get more in to the photography I am starting to find its limitations now. In hindsight, I would have paid a tad more and gone for the Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

I did look at the Sigma 17-70 & took some test pictures with it. I thought it was an excellent lens, however I never had it with me 24/7 to find out any limitations. What do you find are it's limitations?

[Holowlegs]

Originally Posted by Chip Nicley

Wow thats some expensive lenses...But i do take on board your suggestions and understand your point about the resale value.

To be fair i don't think i could take pictures like some of the chaps on here anyway due to time and pure out and out love for photography...not yet anyhoo but im getting frisky for the hobby tho.

I would like a lens between £100 - £300 ish at this time as im still learning for a bit of portrait stuff and general shots.

Thx

Chip

Another lens if your looking to get into portraits is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II you can pick it up for £55 - £60 new. Maybe not the best made lens in the world, but a very sharp and fast lens that takes a great picture and is very easy to use.

Cheers Holo

[Curious Yellow]

Another Sigma 17-70 vote here.

It's a good lens and unless you're a pro or someone who chucks lenses around the build quality is a non-issue. As for losing money when you resell it, I guess you just have to be pragmatic about stuff like that. You can get it on e-bay new from a UK seller for £210 special delivery which I reckon is a good price.

[Chip Nicley]

Thx guys for your posts so far, I have to say ive been looking at the Tamron 18-50 2.8 now, but i would like the extra range of the Sigma 17-70 or the
18-200 OS.

Im also aware of a phrase said on AVF (Jack of all trades master of none)

I guess it will be on the camera more often than not anyway.

So my question is...Is there a masive gap between these 3 lenses???

Cheers

Chip

[Holowlegs]

Hi ya


First off here are the prices of the 3 lens you have asked about.


Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro £188.99

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 £192.99

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS £295.99


One think I thing you got to ask yourself is what you are going to use this new lens for and what is more important to you, zoom range, wider aperture, weather the lens has IS (OS), or a Macro feature. One thing hopefully we all agree on is that all 3 lens are better than the kit lens. I am no expert but I have been through what you are going through not long ago myself, and I will try and give you pro's and con's on each lens. One thing I won't do is try and compare image quality of each lens because this I don't know because I have only owned one of them and that's one I am not allowed to use yet.


Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro

First off its the cheapest.
Got macro function.
It zoom range is the 2nd longest.
Its Aperture is f/2.8-4.5 Its f2.8 at 17mm, f/4.0 at 50mm, f/4.5 at 70mm so it would be 2nd widest aperture past 17mm.
Doesn't have IS(OS)


Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8

Doesn't do Macro
Shortest zoom range
Its aperture is f 2.8 17-50mm It has the widest aperture.
Doesn't have IS(OS)


Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS

Its the most expensive.
Doesn't do Macro
Has the longest zoom
Its aperture is the smallest 17mm f/3.5 - 200mm f6.3
It has IS(OS)

I think what you got to decide is between zoom range, and widest aperture.

If you just need one lens and don't want to carrying other lens and keep changing lens you got to look at the Sigma 18-200mm.

If you are not going to shot over 70mm or don't mind changing lens when you do, and want to do a bit of Macro look at the Sigma 17-70mm

If you don't mind change lens and carrying other lens, and are going to do more low light shots look at the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm.

Hope I have help out and not confused you even more.


Cheers Holo

[hot-fuzz]

[QUOTE=D2V2D;6063401]Clearly there is a reason for the higher price of the other lenses, but how would I gain? This Sigma has a good build quality. As a walk around lens how would the other lenses be better?
QUOTE]

That shot of the cow is brilliant.
There is no way that, that shot could be improved, but there certainly would be less throw-away shots with another lens.
When i shot with my Sigma 70-300 i came out with some real beauties, but like i said before i threw alot away, some that i loved, but were just too shaky (aperture jsut one stop too far).

The improvements the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 can offer is better quality in low light and if you are super rich the 2.8 with IS.

I personally am going for the f/4 IS which means i can get f/4 across the whole zoom range and have IS for when i go bareback.

[Chip Nicley]

No doubt a higher quality lenses will help in more situations (low light) than a less expensive lenses, but is there that mauch difference???

Say the Sig 17-70/18-200 os Vs Can 18-50 2.8 is...

I dont know what are your thoughts

Chip