Improving my lens line-up

[nickbee]

Hi all

I recently upgraded my 350D to a 40D and I'm really pleased with it - no doubt the 350D is still a better camera than I am photographer but the general feel of the camera and the ability to change settings using the buttons on the top are a vast improvement.

This has now got me thinking about where to go with lenses. I currently have two Sigmas - a 17-70 and a 70-300 APO and to be honest they're both fine but I just have that stupid itch to upgrade something again.

The way I see it I have two options. One is to supplement my current lens set-up with primes - maybe starting with a 35mm F2 as the ubiquitous 50mm just seeems a bit long on a crop sensor. The other is to replace my current lenses with better equivalents, I was thinking maybe a Canon 15-85 IS and a Sigma 70-200 2.8.

Loads of people must have started off with a two-lens kit - what did you do next?

 

[woof woof]

I can't remember what order I bought my lenses in. I must be getting old. Anyway...

You could take a look at the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I have one and I have no complaints at all, I think it's great. Equiv. to 48mm on your Canon, HSM and it comes with a hood and a case. It's a DC lens though, so isn't FF compatible.

 

[lauy]

My 3 main lenses are:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS
Sigma 10-20mm

I upgraded to these from previously owning the Canon EF 28-135mm IS and Sigma 17-35mm EX DG HSM.

If you want a perfect all-round general purpose lens, then I strongly recommend the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I personally think (along with many others) it is probably the best walkabout lens available for a crop sensor Canon body. Image quality and colours are amazing, and the fast aperture is great for lowlight conditions and nice bokeh. This will set you back around £800 new, or about £500-600 used.

The other 2 in my list are also very good and I can fully recommend them but only if they are within your needs........obviously if you don't need the UWA lens, you should not waste money on it. I can't fault the 70-200mm f/4 L IS though, except you mentioned the sigma 70-200 f/2.8, which suggests you want a f/2.8 and the Canon equivalent is quite costly, especially for the IS version.

If you want to get some primes, the 50mm f/1.8 mk2 is a no brainer, I've got one and very pleased with it although I don't use it as much now that I have the 17-55. There is also the 85mm f/1.8 which I've read is very good for the price.

It all depends on what you will be mainly shooting.......no point getting equipment that you will not put to full use. I find the 3 lens combo I listed above plus my nifty-fifty pretty much covers all bases though.

 

[clipstone]

On my 30D I had three main lenses.

My absolute fave, and general walkaround, was (and is) a 28-70L. Such a cracking lens with a range to cover a wide scope of shots.

With that, I paired a 10-22 EFS for wide angle, and later a 55-250 IS for zoom work - I found that these 3 lenses covered the vast majority of my shooting (I also have a nifty-fifty and a 100mm macro, which are used much less frequently).

Since moving to FF on a 5D, I have kept the 28-70, and added a 17-40L and a 70-300IS (I think - not used this much yet) to keep a similar spread of lenses.

I have used quality zooms as opposed to primes simply to cover a range of shooting (I have no partic style, or talent some would say) without having to lug a huge amount of kit around with me.

HTH

 

[GaryK26]

You didn't say what you're interested in shooting - that would help / influence with any advise offered. Obviously if you like landscapes, then an UWA would be a good option, whereas if it's wildlife, then a decent zoom should be top of your list.

Like you, I started with a 350D plus the kit lens and 75-300 which was a good start up combo. I have since upgraded to a 40D with a 70-200 F4L and 24-105 F4L IS. I also have a Sigma 50mm Macro which I dont use that much so may look to selling on TP.

You may want to consider investing in other accesories - battery grip, flashgun, studio kit.

As I said, it all depends on what you typically shoot (oh, and course your budget).

EDIT: Also worth considering whether you have aspirations to move to full frame in the future. If you do, then this can / should influence lens choice.

 

[nickbee]

Wow, a lot of answers in a short space of time. Having read through the comments I realise I haven't got to the stage where I have answers to many of the questions asked. I certainly don't have a particular style or any areas of interest yet, although the pictures I'm most pleased with are usually ones taken in low light so maybe that's the beginning of a directon.

Perhaps the best thing might be to wait and see how it all develops before making a decision - no point in rushing in to buy an expensive lens that then doesn't do what I need it to. I'll get a nifty fifty in the meantime so I can play with a prime and see if I like it.

Thanks all for reining me in a bit!

 

[trencheel303]

I was thinking maybe a Canon 15-85 IS and a Sigma 70-200 2.8.

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 looks like a nice lens, good value for money too. Reviews aren't too sparkling, and from what I can see you have to stop it down a bit to get the best performance, particularly in the edges. In the 'real world' this probably doesn't matter. I 'tested' my Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 when I got it and found extreme vignetting, but in the real world images I produce you just don't notice it. An alternative to the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, if you feel you can live without f/2.8, is the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 lens which is actually a little cheaper than the Sigma, and it's one of their L series lenes. In reviews that I have read of this lens there is no discernable loss of quality at the edges compared to the Sigma and chromatic abberation is practically non existant. Ken Rockwell tested it and did the famous '100% crop of the Gazebo' test, and I peered at the screen for ages and couldn't see any CA on the white edges. I was impressed. I was dead set on buying the Sigma before, but it is now more likely that I will pick up the Canon. I'd rather have a slow lens that is lighter with better quality than a faster lens that might not give pleasing results wide open. If any of this is worth considering to you, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 might not be the best choice.

Regarding a 50mm lens being too long on a crop body, you would think so, but I actually find it suits me quite well. It forces me to think about my composition, and I am pleased with a lot of photos I produce on my fifty. It is equivalent to using an 85mm lens on a full frame body. Depending on what you shoot the 50mm may not suit you but try it. I actually use my 30mm lens much less than my 50 - because I find that if I want something wider than 50, I'm going really wide and using my 10-20.

We can't work out whats best for your needs, only you can do that.

 

[nickbee]

We can't work out whats best for your needs, only you can do that.

You're right, and as I can't yet do that I'll just wait until I can. I'll definitely try the 50mm, there's really nothing to lose.