Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I have the Canon 20D, which came with the kit lens - 18-55mm. It's not a bad lens, but it is not brilliant, and I want to buy another lens which will do a much better job.
My monthly digital magazine recommends Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EXDC at a cost of 310.
Has anyone used this lens, and if so would you recommend it?
Thanks for any advice.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
I have the Canon EFS 17-85mm IS USM and it is a cracking piece of kit. Costs around the 450 mark.
From what I gather with the Sigma; you are basically buying virtually the same lens as you already have!!
Have a look at either the 17-85 IS or the 17-40 L. My preference would be the latter.
Quote: Have a look at either the 17-85 IS or the 17-40 L. My preference would be the latter
Is that Canon?
I own a 28-105mm EF canon zoom lens... just need to upgrade my standard zoom.
The kit lens is only a F4/5.6... the Sigma is a F2.8 which is why I was considering it.
Yes they are both Canon lenses. You should note that the 17-85 is EF-S fit so it will only work on the 20D, 350D or 300D within the current line up of EOS cameras.
With regard to the F2.8 ultimately you have to decide whether you will really need it? The 17-40 is F/4 but an absolute cracker of a lens.
Personnely I would get the 17-85 rather than the 17-40 on a 20D. I have a 10D and find I always have the wrong lens on if I have the 28-135 then I need wider so swap for my 16-35. The very next shot this is not long enough and I have to swap again. It is this that is making me consider upgrading as the 17-85 will not fit a 10D.
Quote: Personnely I would get the 17-85 rather than the 17-40 on a 20D.
Agree totally. I had this decision to make when I bought my 20D.
i also agree with above, if you go for the sigma your basically getting the same focus range as you have already got, i realise the sigma is a faster lens but you also have to sit down and think about the type of shots your taking , if its flash photography or brightly lit outdoor holiday pics then you wont need a fast lens, far better in my opinion to have 2 different lenses for different purposes, if your concentrating on indoor shots with not much lighting and not using flash then maybe you should be looking for a 1.8 or even a 1.4 fixed lens ? dont forget you can never have enough lenses,lol.
hmm just read your other reply,didnt realise you already had a different lens, obviously the 2.8 is a quicker lens than you have already got but is it worth shelling out 310 ? have any of your lenses got macro ? if not it might be worth looking down that route, i have just bought a sigma 105 macro for my nikon and its opened up a whole new world, cheers martyn
Quote: From what I gather with the Sigma; you are basically buying virtually the same lens as you already have!!
I beg to differ, apart from the focal range the Canon kit lens is not in the same league as the Sigma, which is faster (constant f2.8), sharper and better built. Seems a good alternative if you can't stretch to the Canon equivalents.
Your web says you do weddings with that in mind I would recommend 24-70L 2.8
Quote: Your web says you do weddings with that in mind I would recommend 24-70L 2.8
I own a 28-105mm EF canon zoom lens so wouldn't that cover the above?
I was going to go out and buy my lens yesterday but didn't do so because I am too confused by what to buy now!
hi jay you havent mentioned what you want to use the lens for ? specialist stuff or just general photography ? lenses are expensive and decisions should be made carefully, cheers martyn
Quote: Hi jay you havent mentioned what you want to use the lens for ? specialist stuff or just general photography ? lenses are expensive and decisions should be made carefully, cheers martyn
I undertake portraiture and weddings. I have a 28-105 lens.
The kit lens that came with the canon is a 18-55, so I was looking to replace that with a much more better lens.
Don't forget with the 20D that you have to use the 1.6 multiplier. The 17-85 is actually 27-136mm if you are talking in 35mm film terms. I find the 17-85mm ideal with the 20D. I am hoping to add the 70-200mm Canon which is 112-320mm in 35mm talk.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar