Lens upgrade - do I have my facts right?

LiMPiNg

LiMPiNg

Suspended / Banned
Messages
132
Edit My Images
No
Please bear with me as I know I can be long-winded and so will try to keep this brief. At the beginning of the year I purchased a second hand Canon 400D as my first foray into DSLR and have taken to it quicker than I thought. Now it is time to upgrade my kit lens and I am needing some advice. I am looking to get more of a walkabout lens with better IQ as the 18-55mm non-IS isn't a cracker of a lens. I am a tourist and plan on traveling a lot and so would like to get a bit more versatility to walk around with, as I often don't feel like changing lens in the middle of busy streets, nor suffer the glare of the missus as she waits for me to do so.

I currently have in my kit:
Canon 18-55mm non-IS kit lens from 400D
Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

I plan to get a Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22 but it is not in the near future and so having the 17 or 18mm range would be needed for now as I like to take architecture and landscape shots. I also would be taking shots inside churches, museums, etc and so occasional low-light ability is helpful as I don't like to use flash, but most of my shots are exterior shots. As well, I have started to get into some wildlife shots, which I didn't think I would at first, and so I plan on upgrading my telephoto eventually, but again not soon.

All that being said, I thought I wanted the Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS but I am starting to have some reservations about it. The ability to replace both my kit lens and 55-200 is appealing though, and means no change lenses while walking about. The other option I am looking at is the Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM as it seems to be highly regarded, would be a good upgrade to my kit lens, can be got for cheap leaving more £ for other lenses earlier, would fit nicely between a 10-20 and 70-300 or 100-300 lens.

My budget is £200-250 and don't mind going used to get more bang for my buck, and so here are the three lenses I have narrowed it down to and my notes from my research. Have I got my information correct? Am I forgetting a lens to look at? Right now I am leaning towards the Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM but the Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS is still in my head and so any input would be appreciated.

Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM
- has the wide end and good short telephoto range
- fast and quiet AF
- worried about 4-5.6 being slow for indoor shots
- IS is good but doesn't make up for faster glass

Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS
- covers a lot of range for walking around
- could replace both Canon 18-55 kit and Sigma 55-200 lenses - making it more affordable and no need to change lenses when walking about
- good for outdoor shots but may not make a good indoor lens
- same concerns as the Canon with regards to speed and IS not making up for it
- louder and slower AF motor than the other lenses

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR LD IF DI
- image quality is fantastic, many reviews saying it is comparable to the Canon L lens.
- 2.8 speed throughout focal range, good for low light and short DOF when needed
- has macro feature (althought not a true macro lens) to start playing around with it to see if i want to invest in a macro lens later
- really worried about missing the 17-27 focal range for architecture and landscape shots

Thoughts? Suggestions? Advice?
 
Out of the EF-S 17-85, 18-200 & 28-75

I would personaly go for the tamron as it has good IQ and f2.8 really makes a difference.
 
Hi there,

When I bought my 350D I bought it "body only" because I already had a cheap old 28-70mm Canon lens which I thought would do me. I immediately found the range lacking, and a week later I had bought the EF-S 17-85.

I think that the EF-S 17-85 is rather under-rated, since it's now compared to the the EF-S 17-55 F2.8. IMO the EF-S 17-85 is a very decent lens - I find it quite sharp and I think it's amazing considering its current secondhand price.

It is true that IS doesn't compete with faster glass - I have found that myself, and recently bought the 85mm f/1.8 for this very reason.

I don't buy 3rd-party glass myself, but otherwise I'd find f/2.8 on a zoom of this range quite compelling. At the end of the day you still have your kit lens to give you the 18-28 wideangle.

Stroller.
 
I would take the Tamron 28-75 off you rlist as 28mm just is not wide enough - replace it with the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 instead. Cracker of a lens!
 
On cropped sensor body, wide isn't wide enough until you get a 10/12mm lens. Tokina 12-24mm is good and so is Canon 10-22mm (my friend has a fine copy). The Tamron 28-75 is a superb lens, get this if this is the range you want to cover.
 
the sigma 17-70 might be worth a consideration it is f2.8 at the wide end and i think f4 at the other. very useful. sigma also do a 24-70 f2.8 which is good for low light as well, although quite heavy.
i found the 17-85 was too slow for me and have heard it suffers quite badly from barrel distortion or summat or other. not noticed it myself though. i was happy with my 17-85 till i realised it was too slow(f stop to low).

the 18-200 range lenses are good if oyu dont want to change lenses, but suffer slightly on the quality. it down to what you prefer in truth.

the tamron 17-50 f2.8 is supposedly a brilliant little lens as well,
 
Thanks for the tips guys. fletch5, that Sigma 17-70 looks very appealing - fast and has the wide angle range I need for now until I get a dedicated wide angle lens. Combine that with the macro capability to play around with and the price and I think it has taken the lead.
 
Sigma 17-70 definitely - you WILL notice the difference in quality straightaway, and it feels really solid!! :D
 
Ya, I think I am sold on it and now will just wait for a good deal to come along. It will fit nicely between a 10-20/10-22mm and 70-300/100-300mm which are in the plans, but figured I would upgrade my most used range first, since the 18-55mm non-IS kit lens isn't the greatest walkabout lens.
 
The Sigma 17-70 is a brilliant lens - it was my walkabout lens until I recently bought a Canon 17-55. I'm considering selling the 17-70 but have given a friend first refusal on it. If you've no joy finding one, drop me a line in a week or so. It'll come with a 72mm CPL and a 72mm ND Grad filter.
 
Keep me posted if your friend decides not to take it. I am not in a huge rush as I can still do well with my current kit.
 
I have the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and I would reccomend it to anyone. I also have the canon 17-85 EF-S which is a good lens, but F2.8 comes in very handy so if I had to get rid of one I'd keep the Tamron.
 
Just an update...

I purchased the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 from raythefab here in the classified section and I made the right decision. Thanks fletch5 for pointing out its omission from my list, and all the others that recommended it as well. I pulled the trigger as it was the lens I was looking for and it was a good deal. It arrived this morning and I have played around with it for a bit and wow, what a cracking lens. Tack sharp and the colors are vibrant - knocks the pants off the 400D kit lens by a mile. The focal range is perfect as I still like the 17-24mm range a lot, and the 70mm on my crop sensor will mean not switching lenses unless I want to shoot wildlife. It is a much more substantial lens than the kit one but that was expected with the 2.8 capability - I will just need to work out my neck muscles a bit more before my next walk around day with it hehe. Also means I will need to be a bit more careful when taking it in & out of my Lowepro Primus AW bag from the side.

Thoroughly pleased with this purchase, now it is time to start looking at 70-200/300 lenses to compliment it and to replace my Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 that I picked up cheap at first to play around with. A lot of the times when using the 55-200 I wish I had more reach and so I am thinking about a lens with 300mm at the long end, but worried about softness and shake when hand held. Maybe a fast 70-200 with a 1.4x might be the better option.

Ah well, that is all decisions for further down the road once the missus and the bank account balance have forgotten about this purchase. Doesn't help that I want to add an UWA (Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16) and the Canon 60mm macro lenses to the kit bag either. Damn, what an expensive hobby!
 
lol, it only gets worse...

the canon 55-250 IS would be a good option next as the sigma 55-200 replacement, really sharp.
 
I was thinking the Canon 70-300 IS instead since my "normal" lens is now 17-70. It is either that or a Canon 70-200L f/4 non-IS. I just need to decide if I really need that 200-300 range. All academic right now as I think a Sigma 10-20 is next up in June, unless some money miraculously falls in my lap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top