Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Lens recommendation please

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
Kapitan
Kapitan  839 forum posts
3 Jan 2007 - 10:53 PM

Hi all,

I have finally made up my mind to go and buy myself the Canon 30D. However, I am not sure which lens to go for. I am a first time SLR user, however will not be buying the 18-55 kit lens. I was initially looking at the 17-85 IS, however after reading a few reviews, started to see people actually recommending the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Autofocus Lens...saying it gives much better shots. I suppose that can be very relative, however it has made me try to look a little wider looking for a lens.

So, can anyone recommend a good lens to compliment the 30D but not too expensive (and the fact that I am only a starter)?

Many thanks,
Johan

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
3 Jan 2007 - 10:53 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

dcash29
dcash29  81904 forum posts England
3 Jan 2007 - 11:04 PM

I was looking to buy a new lens moving from the 18-55 kit lens.

I looked and got samples using the Canon 17-85IS, 17-40L plus the sigma 17-70.

The shots were very much the same, i thought the canon 17-40L had the best quality (just) but not enough for the extra cash over the sigma 17-70. I can only see a very very small difference with a x10loop or when you view at 100%

Now some like the 17-85 so really buy whichever you want.

17-40L for low light and if ya have the money
17-70 for a great walkabout lens
and the 17-85 if yo have shaky hands but remember this lens cant be used if you upgrade to the 5D

danbrann
danbrann e2 Member 9473 forum postsdanbrann vcard 15 Constructive Critique Points
3 Jan 2007 - 11:09 PM

Where are you At? I am in Northumberland and have the 17-85mm and the sigma 10-20mm for sale. If you are nearby you are wellcome to try them.

fredchan
fredchan  8124 forum posts
3 Jan 2007 - 11:52 PM

ypu could do worse than the 18-200 Sigma I have on the end of my 30D

Dickens Festijn

Images from the amazing Dickens Christmas Festival in Deventer, Holland - taken just before Christmas with my 30D and Sigma 18-200 - it is a sensible compromise between quality and versitilty. Its a great all round travel/walk about lens that gives great flexibilty in a very compact size that allows you to get the shot, which is the most important thing

Kapitan
Kapitan  839 forum posts
4 Jan 2007 - 12:10 AM

Hi Dan,

unfortunately, I am not in the country at the moment...down in the Caribbean for a while, so trying out your lenses would be a small problem Wink. Thanks for the offer though!

Fred, I prefer not to go for so much zoom all in one lens. Maybe I should say that I plan to buy another lens around April next year...plan to go on a trip to Portugal and the whole family would be going and as such would want to add a good lens to the collection.

My first step would certainly be to get used to the camera itself...learn how to use it properly (I am already quite familar with much of the manual settings...more talking about the camera itself here) and have a lens with it now that compliments it nicely. Then, come next year, get another lens, maybe longer zoom, to have a good spread between the two lenses. It would also mean I could have a bit of time to save up for the next lens and possibly get something better but that is all speculation at the moment.

I do feel fairly confident that if I get the Sigma 17-70, it would be a great lens. I just want to get other people's opinion on whether I could be going down a better route, i.e. a better lens, or if (with what I said above) it might make more sense to go for the 18-200 (or similar) and then forget about another lens next year.

Thoughts?

Briwooly
Briwooly  8452 forum posts England5 Constructive Critique Points
4 Jan 2007 - 12:14 AM

Just had the 17-40L bought me for Xmas and iam so impressed but shop around 550 shop price you can save around 100 on e bay and you can always buy secondhand
Brian..........................

tepot
tepot  104416 forum posts United Kingdom
4 Jan 2007 - 3:55 AM

you really need to decide on what kind of pictures you want to take, then get the best lens you can afford for that subject, you won't go far wrong with the Sigma EX range and you'll save a bundle over canon lenses, thats not to say canon arn't good co's they are, but you'll be hard pushed to see a big enough difference for the extra cash to be worth while.

Ness
Ness  936 forum posts United Kingdom
4 Jan 2007 - 9:09 AM

Guys,

I have a similar dilemma at the moment.
I've noticed a few people recommend the Sigma 17-70 over the Canon 17-85 IS.

Would that same reasoning apply to the Sigma 70-300 APO over the Canon 70-300 IS?

I don't like spending money just for money's sake, but if the Canon lenses are better I'd probably buy them. If there's not much difference I'd probably buy the Sigmas and spend the $$ saved on other toys like filters, cable release, spare batteries etc etc etc

Thoughts?

Ness

sut68
sut68  101994 forum posts England76 Constructive Critique Points
4 Jan 2007 - 9:12 AM

I bought the Sigma 17-70mm in August last year and it's a pretty good lens. Quality is sharp and it's a pretty fast focus on it - feels nice and solid too.

Can't comment on the others as I haven't used them. Obviously if you opted for the 17-40L, you will probably need to get something a little higher up the zoom range to cater for those circumstances ... which I don't know if you're planning on getting a larger zoom or not.

If you're only looking at buying the one lens then I would seriously think about the benefits of the 18-200mm and the range it offers - only a suggestion.

Paul

fredchan
fredchan  8124 forum posts
4 Jan 2007 - 1:29 PM

When not working I carry just the 30d with the 18-200 on it - its light, easy to carry and takes up very little space but gives so much more than even a prosumer - if on holiday the last thing you will want is to be carrying around a camera bad full of lenses etc - the novelty soon wears off I can tell you from experience.

welshwizard
5 Jan 2007 - 12:11 PM


Quote: Guys,

I have a similar dilemma at the moment.
I've noticed a few people recommend the Sigma 17-70 over the Canon 17-85 IS.

Would that same reasoning apply to the Sigma 70-300 APO over the Canon 70-300 IS?

I don't like spending money just for money's sake, but if the Canon lenses are better I'd probably buy them. If there's not much difference I'd probably buy the Sigmas and spend the $$ saved on other toys like filters, cable release, spare batteries etc etc etc

Thoughts?

Ness


Sigma's not a bad lens, but the Canon has IS which I think will be worth the expenditure. The f5.6 max aperture at 300mm is a pain, so I have just bought myself an EX 100-300 f4.
Big snag with the Sigma, if you're a Canon user is that the Sigma might be inoperable on future Canon models.

Pentax uses have also commented on the good quality of the Sigma 17-70 - here IS is not so much of a necessity..IMO

Kapitan
Kapitan  839 forum posts
8 Jan 2007 - 12:12 AM

So, is the Sigma 17-70 really the 'can't go wrong' sort of lens? What about other alternatives like the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L? I know it is L glass but i read somewhere that the 17-40 f/4 L wasn't THAT much greater than the 17-70 stated above. or even the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR? at the end of the day, am i really going to notice the suttle differences without analysing the pictures to a 'T' between these lenses? (yes i know i will notice a difference with the 18-55 kit lens)

some are also saying go longer zoom...18-200 perhaps. If i go that way, there must be a trade-off between have that one lens as opposed to the 17-70 and a 70-200 (apart from one lens and two)! can anyone help? what about my thoughts later on, maybe a year, to buy another lens possibly of better quality to cover either the 70-200 side of zoom or even replacing the 17-70 with an even better lens?

Your thoughts are much appreciated.

dcash29
dcash29  81904 forum posts England
8 Jan 2007 - 12:28 AM

Johan send me a private message with youre email, i'll post what pictures i have if you want?????

They aint that good as the weather was rough but at least you can see the results.

User_Removed
8 Jan 2007 - 1:08 AM

I'd recommend the Canon 24-105mm bit of a strange range on the 30D I know. It's the one I picked as an all rounder.
Wll get the Canon 17-40 mm later exclusively for landscapes. Then a Macro, and probaly something longer for birds Zoos wildlife etc. To complete the kit, tubes and a 1.4 converter.
Col

Kapitan
Kapitan  839 forum posts
8 Jan 2007 - 1:26 AM

Wow Col, hell of a line up! So, for that all-rounder, would that include pictures of people/family, kids etc?

I was just reading somewhere that: "Generally speaking, "third party" lenses such as those made by Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, are not worth considering compared to Canon-brand lenses. The remarkably cheap wide-range third-party zooms deliver terrible image quality"...what does anyone think about that?? when i read it i thought it was a bit extreme to make such a remark, but then again, I don't know the truth behind it!

what about primes? to some extent i have completely eliminated them from my line-up cause I feel they are so limiting...should I?

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.