Decision Time...!

Ok, so here's my dilema... I'm probably going to have some funds to invest in some new glass in the next couple of weeks...probably limited to around £550. My current glass includes a 50mm f1.8, 17-85 IS USM, and Sigma 28-300mm DG (alleged macro ;-) ). I'm aware of the limitations of the Sigma but it does for decent light conditions when I need the extra reach, so don't really want anything at the longer end for now! The 50mm is pin sharp, and an excellent little lens. My biggest issue is with the 17-85 - it worked great on my 1000D but since upgrading to the 7D, it's flaws are really starting to show...not sharp enough (even tripod mounted), and CA is becoming a bit of a pain in the backside. However, this is my main walkaround lens! So my thinking is this (if you're still reading, thanks for your patience :-) ), for the price range I've got 2 choices: a) Sigma 10-20 (either version) and then use my other sigma when I need the extra reach, or; b) 17-40L, which although it will stretch my budget, will probably better replace the 17-85 as a walkabout lens From what I've read, both of these should show me an improvement on my current set-up, so really just want to tap into any knowledge/advice that you lovely epz'ers can provide to help make my final decision...feel free to throw any curve-balls regarding other lenses!! Thanks in advance, Chris

Ok, so here's my dilema...

I'm probably going to have some funds to invest in some new glass in the next couple of weeks...probably limited to around £550.

My current glass includes a 50mm f1.8, 17-85 IS USM, and Sigma 28-300mm DG (alleged macro ).

I'm aware of the limitations of the Sigma but it does for decent light conditions when I need the extra reach, so don't really want anything at the longer end for now! The 50mm is pin sharp, and an excellent little lens. My biggest issue is with the 17-85 - it worked great on my 1000D but since upgrading to the 7D, it's flaws are really starting to show...not sharp enough (even tripod mounted), and CA is becoming a bit of a pain in the backside. However, this is my main walkaround lens!

So my thinking is this (if you're still reading, thanks for your patience ), for the price range I've got 2 choices:

a) Sigma 10-20 (either version) and then use my other sigma when I need the extra reach, or;

b) 17-40L, which although it will stretch my budget, will probably better replace the 17-85 as a walkabout lens

From what I've read, both of these should show me an improvement on my current set-up, so really just want to tap into any knowledge/advice that you lovely epz'ers can provide to help make my final decision...feel free to throw any curve-balls regarding other lenses!!

Thanks in advance,
Chris

17-40 seems a little on the short side for a walk around lens, but will depend on what you photograph whilst walking around! HAve you considered the 24-105L to replace the 17-85?

17-40 seems a little on the short side for a walk around lens, but will depend on what you photograph whilst walking around! HAve you considered the 24-105L to replace the 17-85?

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS would be within budget and covers your focal lengths. The 10-20 is for limited use, architecture or huge landscapes and I think the 17-70 range is more versatile for walkabout. JP

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS would be within budget and covers your focal lengths. The 10-20 is for limited use, architecture or huge landscapes and I think the 17-70 range is more versatile for walkabout.

JP

Maybe I’m well short of the mark here but dare I venture that you seem to have lost confidence in the 17-85 (which is a cracking wee lens & plenty sharp enough) & you’ve convinced yourself that new glass is the answer Maybe I’m out of turn here but is it possible that the spec of the 7d could be showing up shortcomings in technique that the 1000d was masking so that when you look at your images and consider the return on investment, you aren’t happy with the results If on the other hand new glass is right for you, I’d get the sigma simply as it covers a focal range you don’t currently have & would better suit landscape work

Maybe I’m well short of the mark here but dare I venture that you seem to have lost confidence in the 17-85 (which is a cracking wee lens & plenty sharp enough) & you’ve convinced yourself that new glass is the answer

Maybe I’m out of turn here but is it possible that the spec of the 7d could be showing up shortcomings in technique that the 1000d was masking so that when you look at your images and consider the return on investment, you aren’t happy with the results

If on the other hand new glass is right for you, I’d get the sigma simply as it covers a focal range you don’t currently have & would better suit landscape work

[quote]17-40 seems a little on the short side for a walk around lens, but will depend on what you photograph whilst walking around! HAve you considered the 24-105L to replace the 17-85?[/quote] Thanks. My main focus is landscape, so the 24-105L on a crop sensor would probably not do as a walkabout and would probably be an eventual add-on if I were to go with the 10-20 this time - it's a considerable amount above the budget I've got at the moment. Cheers, Chris

Quote:17-40 seems a little on the short side for a walk around lens, but will depend on what you photograph whilst walking around! HAve you considered the 24-105L to replace the 17-85?


Thanks. My main focus is landscape, so the 24-105L on a crop sensor would probably not do as a walkabout and would probably be an eventual add-on if I were to go with the 10-20 this time - it's a considerable amount above the budget I've got at the moment.

Cheers,
Chris

[quote]Maybe I’m well short of the mark here but dare I venture that you seem to have lost confidence in the 17-85 (which is a cracking wee lens & plenty sharp enough) & you’ve convinced yourself that new glass is the answer Maybe I’m out of turn here but is it possible that the spec of the 7d could be showing up shortcomings in technique that the 1000d was masking so that when you look at your images and consider the return on investment, you aren’t happy with the results If on the other hand new glass is right for you, I’d get the sigma simply as it covers a focal range you don’t currently have & would better suit landscape work[/quote] This could well be the case, and you're definitely not speaking out of turn! I'm attending the Wirral Meet on the 22nd so will probably speak with the guys there and get some further advice - to either rule in or out the technique issue! I know that could well be the case in terms of the sharpness but would that also account for CA as well? - Sorry if that's a really dumb question but my knowledge on this area is pretty limited. Cheers, Chris

Quote:Maybe I’m well short of the mark here but dare I venture that you seem to have lost confidence in the 17-85 (which is a cracking wee lens & plenty sharp enough) & you’ve convinced yourself that new glass is the answer

Maybe I’m out of turn here but is it possible that the spec of the 7d could be showing up shortcomings in technique that the 1000d was masking so that when you look at your images and consider the return on investment, you aren’t happy with the results

If on the other hand new glass is right for you, I’d get the sigma simply as it covers a focal range you don’t currently have & would better suit landscape work


This could well be the case, and you're definitely not speaking out of turn! I'm attending the Wirral Meet on the 22nd so will probably speak with the guys there and get some further advice - to either rule in or out the technique issue! I know that could well be the case in terms of the sharpness but would that also account for CA as well? - Sorry if that's a really dumb question but my knowledge on this area is pretty limited.

Cheers,
Chris

[quote]Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS would be within budget and covers your focal lengths. The 10-20 is for limited use, architecture or huge landscapes and I think the 17-70 range is more versatile for walkabout. JP[/quote] Thanks John, I'd not considered that one so will do a bit of reading on it and potentially see if I can test one out. Cheers, Chris

Quote:Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS would be within budget and covers your focal lengths. The 10-20 is for limited use, architecture or huge landscapes and I think the 17-70 range is more versatile for walkabout.

JP


Thanks John, I'd not considered that one so will do a bit of reading on it and potentially see if I can test one out.

Cheers,
Chris

It seems that the CA issue with the 17-85 is a well known issue (just not to me prior to the original post!), so will work on my focusing to see if I can impove my shots before parting with any cash! Thanks for the input everyone. Chris

It seems that the CA issue with the 17-85 is a well known issue (just not to me prior to the original post!), so will work on my focusing to see if I can impove my shots before parting with any cash!

Thanks for the input everyone.

Chris

How much of an issue is the CA for you, do you often print at a full size where its becoming apparent? I guess this is as you mentioned the higher spec body showing the limitations. Maybe is does need tackled from two fronts, one to get the best kit you can to compliment the camera & secondly to look at what new techniques can get the best from the new & existing kit & its limitations If you go through with the lens then I'd still look at the 10-20mm as landscape seem to be your thing and this will open up new compositions the other lens can't match

How much of an issue is the CA for you, do you often print at a full size where its becoming apparent? I guess this is as you mentioned the higher spec body showing the limitations.

Maybe is does need tackled from two fronts, one to get the best kit you can to compliment the camera & secondly to look at what new techniques can get the best from the new & existing kit & its limitations

If you go through with the lens then I'd still look at the 10-20mm as landscape seem to be your thing and this will open up new compositions the other lens can't match

The CA isn't the major issue, the focus problem is the bigger issue however the CA on top of that had started me down the road of doubting the lens...once I know something is there, it's hard to not look for it. It hasn't appeared too heavily on a lot of shots but it has been obvious (even at A4) on a few. I really appreciate your comments Alan - although I posed the question in the thread, I think I had already convinced myself that new glass was the answer but I think I'll try to better understand my potential (likely) technique flaws that could be affecting it...at least then I'll know for sure if a new lens is necessary! Chris

The CA isn't the major issue, the focus problem is the bigger issue however the CA on top of that had started me down the road of doubting the lens...once I know something is there, it's hard to not look for it. It hasn't appeared too heavily on a lot of shots but it has been obvious (even at A4) on a few.

I really appreciate your comments Alan - although I posed the question in the thread, I think I had already convinced myself that new glass was the answer but I think I'll try to better understand my potential (likely) technique flaws that could be affecting it...at least then I'll know for sure if a new lens is necessary!

Chris