Lens choice, advice appreciated :)

[benneh]

Basically I'm looking for a replacement for the kit lens on my 350D. I've got a Sigma 10-20 and a Canon 75-300 (rarely used), ooh and a nifty :D. It'll be used for portraits (with and without flash) and street photography, and general shots (bit of landscape and so on).
My budget is <£350.

So.. My choices seem to be

*SIGMA 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO
*Canon EF-S 17-85MM f/4-5.6 f4-5.6 IS USM

As with most I just want to best lens for the money, I can't afford L glass at the moment without breaking the bank. As far as I can see (from reviews), the Sigma is slightly sharper and suffers from less distortion and a lot less Chromatic aberration. IS isn't really necessary for me as far as the Canon goes, but at 27-136mm (think thats right?) on a cropped sensor it will give me a little extra room over the Sigma at the wide end should I need it, but just how much better is the Sigma? in terms of image quality. My 10-20 feels quite well built and I would presume the 24-70 would be the same, how does that compare to the Canon?. Sorry for all of the questions, but reviews can only take you so far!.

Any opinions greatly received :).


Also ordering a battery grip and 430EX, can't wait :D.

[RobertP]

I think the kit lens is better than most give it credit for. If you want to see some obvious benefit from the upgrade you need a f2.8 lens. My upgrade from the kit lens on the 20D was to the Tamron 28-75mm and it is an excellent lens - even wide open at 2.8. No experience of the other suggestions just wanted to add to your problems ;)

[Moos3h]

I have the 24-70 and it's superb, very nice indeed. It doesn't feel as good quality as the L series lenses, but I have no image quality complaints!

Cheers,
James

[Phil T]

Sigma 24-70 2.8 is an outstanding lens - bought mine a few weeks back from another member here & love it. The lens that is.

[Darryn]

The 24-70 is going to be your best bet.

I had the 17-85IS and found the IS to be damn near pointless, 85mm just isnt long enough to need it. Also its the EFS mount, which means if you upgrade to a 1 or 5 series body the lens wont be compatible...

The 24-70 is however a little long on the short end especially on a 1.6x Crop body, but as you already have a 10-20 you have that covered. The f2.8 is invaluable allowing you to get shots that other lenses just simply cannot manage. :)

[benneh]

Thanks for the advise guys, much appreciated :).

[Witch]

Another vote here for the Sigma - remember also that the EX range is Sigma's Pro spec range. I love mine - shot my way right through my cousins wedding last weekend with it and got some nice results. If I was buying again now, I'd make the same choice.

[niks_devil]

i got a 400D , with a kit lens 18-55 ...

planning to get a sigma 50mm (for night photography)
and sigma 70-200 for general+nature photography...
and which one is better , tamron or sigma?

plz advise:)

[HIMUPNORTH]

Second hand 28-70mm F2.8 L USM at www.ffordes.co.uk is £519 and will always have a better resale value than any of the lenses you mention.

Would defo avoid EF-S if you have any upgrade ambitions.

HTH.

[mikeleslie]

I think the kit lens is better than most give it credit for. If you want to see some obvious benefit from the upgrade you need a f2.8 lens. My upgrade from the kit lens on the 20D was to the Tamron 28-75mm and it is an excellent lens - even wide open at 2.8. No experience of the other suggestions just wanted to add to your problems ;)

Tamron 28-75 is an excellent lens with my 400D. I recently tested a Canon 24-70 F2.8L and the Tamron was AS sharp as the canon at F2.8.

Only issue I have with it is in darker situations it auto focuses correctly only about 80% of the time.

[walls]

My Tamron 28-75mm is on ebay now but be quick if you want it, only a couple of hours to go (would have sold on here if it wasn't for the lack of posts!). It is a sharp one even at f2.8 center frame, although a bit soft at the edges at f2.8 but perfect a stop down.