[Schellamo]

I think I'm due for some new glass, here's my wants and then you can give me some recommendations please??

* Around $500
* something like 17-70, thats fairly adaptable so I don't have to change lenses too often
* smaller the f/ the better of course, but I'm thinking around 2 or 3 would suffice.
* not too heavy, the 350D is so light
* what everyone wants in a lens, SHARPNESS!

am I dreaming to get it under $500?? I'm hopless at looking for glass, hubby has always bought it for me in the past (except the 50mm)

Anybody got any suggestions/comments??

[wulinka]

So why can't you get him to do it this time?

sorry, that was no help.
Have you checked Sigma? I haven't myself, but I am guessing that you might have to compromise a little, at the price limit you are setting.

look here for some suggestions I got when I was asking about a good replacement for the kit lense.

e. g.

I have the sigma 24-70 2.8 and love it, a little noisy but fast focusing.

If you want wider sigma has just released a 17-70 F2.8-4.0 Phlip has ordered one and should have some results this week.

I don't know how happy you were with your kit lense, and apparently there are differences between batches of this lense, but I thought it was pretty crap. so I made a big jump to a Canon L lense (24-70mm, f/2.8), and so far am more than happy.

the widest F stop you will usually get is 2.0 or 2.8. some 50mm prime lenses offer a luxurious 1.8 or 1.4, at which it can actually become difficult to deal with the very shallow depth of field (DOF)


the big leap in price is most often between lenses with F-max 4.0 and F-max 2.8, but I find that makes all the difference. Mostly in terms of background blurr, but obviously also when you are shooting in low light.
So when I was looking, I didn't even consider f/4 lenses.
Mind you it's less of a difference in DOF the further you are away from your subject, so if you shoot mostly "standard" kind of angle pictures (of your son ) and are often outside in daylight, F/4 might be well enough.

Anyway, I'm sure you know dpreview... check there.

Good luck with your search!!

[Russt]

Hi Schell,

I have been researching lenses for months and months...........only no spare cash to buy one with Good news they are getting cheaper!!

If you are after a replacement walk-around lens for your kit I would look at the 17-70 sigma or the 17-85 canon.
The sigma I have seen as low as $430 the canon your best bet would be to pickup a good second hand at around 500 to 600. The key word is walk-around!! The 17-70 goes down to 2.8 at the wide end but you do loose it quickly.........I think at around 23mm.

The other lenses to look at would be the sigma 24-70 ex 2.8 or the tamron 28-75 2.8. these are around 600 here in aus. Both of these would be a good choice if you are happy to start at 24mm/28mm.

For me I think I would go the 17-70 or pick up a second hand 17-85 as I have the 50mm 1.8 for low light type shots. I need 17mm because of the type of shots I take. I would use it while in the boat where you don't have a lot of room. It would do away with the 18-55 kit.

Good luck with your choice.

[EnglishBob]

I've had my Sigma 24-70 2.8 for a couple of months and love it. It's a little bulky but I soon got used to it.

[Schellamo]

hmmm, I just found a sigma 24-70 f/2 macro for $600 I'll have to save a little longer but it'll be worth it cos I've been wanting to get a macro.
Can someone tell me what EX and DG stand for??

[adam]

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses.asp tells you
EX - superior build and optical quality
DG - for digital

[wulinka]

just an uninformed quick comment:

will you be able to use the sigma DG lense on full frame sensors?

I seem to remember that there was some limitation, Schell, that's something to be aware of , if you ever want to upgrade your body, the lense should stay with you beyond that!

I'm sorry, guess I should do my research before I start babbeling away....

uli


edit: I think DC is what I was talking about, and DG is suitable for digital but covers the entire area of 35mm film

[Russt]

Uli, DG is a new coating which is better in controlling flare and CA. DC is like EF-S in sigma


hahahaha you beat me too it.

[Schellamo]

so does that mean if a sigma lens is DC that it might not be suitable for full frame??

[shuttertalk]

How about a sigma 18-200?

That would definitely fit the budget....

[Schellamo]

hmmm, I think I'd rather save up a bit more and get an extra stop or two of light, thanks for the suggestion

[Russt]

so does that mean if a sigma lens is DC that it might not be suitable for full frame

You still should be able to use it, just not the wide end.........I think (could be wrong) :/

[NT73]

Poor Schellamo. Everyone has an opinion and in the end you will have to make the decision based on your own survey me thinks. I have seen this type of question asked numerous times and it always comes down to ....how much money have you got.

I wonder how long it will be before canon or nikon stick a 10-500 f2 lens on an all in one pocket camera.
I can't help yet as I haven't got the body even.

[Kombisaurus]

so does that mean if a sigma lens is DC that it might not be suitable for full frame

You still should be able to use it, just not the wide end.........I think (could be wrong) :/

While you can physically fit a Sigma "DC" lens on the camera just fine (unlike Canon's EF-S range which will not physically fit the lens mount), the photos will definately be very badly vignetted at the wide end of the zoom and may still be badly vignetted at the tele end as well (this would vary depending on focal length range).
I tried this exact experiment last weekend at the zoo, using Chris' full-frame 5D with my Sigma 10-20 DC EX... and here are the results:

At 10mm:


And at 20mm:


As you can see, the images are pretty much unusable unless cropped down to 2/3 their size.

Sigma lenses that are designated "DG" on the other hand will work just fine with full-frame sensors. I also confirmed this last weekend using my Sigma 28mm f/1.8 DG EX on Chris' Canon 5D with great results. The "DG" lenses have full-frame coverage unlike the "DC" lenses, its just that the lens coating is optimised for digital sensors AFAIK.

As for my recommendations... well, its a toughy.
I have an EF-S 17-85 myself, but not sure if I'd recommend it to you.. The IS is great to enable the lens to be used in low light and does counter the fact its fairly slow at f/4-f/5.6. But if the same lens were available with a constant f/2.8 instead of the IS then I'd swap it in a heartbeat. When I bought it I was torn between it and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8.
Looking back in hindsight, I think perhaps I would've been better off saving my pennies a bit longer and getting a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. I'm not having a go at the quality of the Sigma lens at all and I'm very happy with my Sigma lenses and the images they make, but I like my Canon L lenses better! I'd much rather be using an L lens - if for no other reason than their usually-superb focusing.

If you have your heart set on a particular lens but its not in your budget... then I'd suggest trying to be patient and waiting until you can afford it. In the long run you'll forget the hole it left in your wallet but you'll remember the great photos you take with it for a long time.

[Wedding Shooter]

Good advice form Adrian - I have ended up selling most of my non L lens stuff in favour of the L lenses. The only non L I have now is an 85 1.8 from Canon.

All that being said the Sigma is fine for the money - just make sure you can return it if it is not a good copy.

[Schellamo]

Thanks guys, I've got somewhere to start looking now, I'd be lost without y'all!