Upgrade from Sigma...

G

gpc1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,289
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
No
Thinking of upgrading my Sigma 17-70 APO DG Macro.

I just cant seem to get on with this lens. I have a
sigma 70-300 cheapy which I actually prefer,
sigma 10-20 which is ace
canon 50m 1.8.
400D
But what to upgrade to?

Any ideas, given what I already have. Looking at a canon IS or L lens, second hand.Or, toying with selling the lens and buying a 40d
I keep hovering and asking questions but am in two minds...
Any ideas what sort of upgrade step i should take. i now feel that i have improved on my skills to warrent stepping up from my basic kit.
Thnaks
 
I have the Canon 17-85mm USM IS and it is a fantastic lens. If your quick, cash bach until the end of the month.
 
Looks like a good choice alternative.

Thanks Dave
Rgds
Grge
 
I wouldn't bother with the 17-85.
It is much like Canon's 18-55 (non-IS) kit lens - its an okay lens in SOME circumstances, and good shots can be achieved with it, but it isn't very consistent.

Try the Sigma 24-70 or Tamron 17-50.
 
i have this lens and think its miles better than the 70-300 APO that you say you like better.

what things dont you like about it. I dont think the 17-85 (IS) is much of an upgrade over it apart from focal length and IS. as said its much more inconsistant than the 17-70.

personal options would be the tamron 17-50 f2.8. its meant to be a cracking lens and the constant 2.8 is and advantage. The obvious disadvantage is the zoom is smaller than even the kit.
 
It seems a little soft to me...

Check out the below pics (and the others in that series). These have been processed and sharpened but when you view full size they are still a little soft. It could be me and I could be expecting too much. Im going to do a focus test this weekend as well in case its just a soft copy of the lens.So I was either contemplating lens or camera upgrade...



http://www.flickr.com/photos/23064358@N02/2494729827/in/set-72157605073102416/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/23064358@N02/2494731925/in/set-72157605073102416/
 
I've got a 17-70 and its really really sharp from f/4 at 17mm and already very sharp wide open on the long end.

Its at least as good as the highly regarded Nikon 18-80 DX - AFAIK the Canon 17-85 is not a well regarded lens. The only real optical upgrade I can see would be the 17-55 IS?
 
it looks like you've got a nice set up at the moment, got a broad range. All you want to do now is buy great lenses, no point buying medeocre lenses when you've got some now. So my advice is, save up... Alot, then buy your lenses
 
very good point,

May as well save the pennies for an L lens or two......
 
I might be inclined to go for the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 as it fits the hole nicely and it's a great lens for the money ;)
 
davidbridges said:
it looks like you've got a nice set up at the moment, got a broad range. All you want to do now is buy great lenses, no point buying medeocre lenses when you've got some now. So my advice is, save up... Alot, then buy your lenses
Click to expand...

:agree:

Sound advice...

Canon 24-105 L IS USM is your ideal replacement. Cost you around £700 but worth every damn penny and more. You already have th 10-20 (so do I, great lens) so you're covered on the wide angle and this lens will give you a nice upper range to avoid having to swap to your 70-200 for a little zoom. You can then even look at upping that to a Canon 100-400 in future for some extreme closeup action :D

I swear by the 24-105, it's pin sharp almost all the way through the range and very versitile.
 
cracked it, i reckon thats the one then.

Thanks all,

Ive just had a look at flickr with some shots taken with that lens 24 105 and very impressive. Will put that on my list for a future upgrade, along with the 40d.

Greg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top