lens question for beginner

D

daveydw

Messages
19
Edit My Images
No
iam looking at 2 every day walk about lens for my 400d
1- Canon EF 28-105mm 28-105 f3.5-4.5 Mark II USM
2- sigma 17-70mm macro

which of those 2 lens would you recommend and which on will take the sharper photo

I have the kit lens and a sigma 70-300mm apo and thinking about getting a 50mm for portrait shots
 
The kit lens is a walkabout everyday lens. Only thing that lets it down is the small maximum aperture which makes it difficult in low light. If you want to upgrade to something with the same or similar zoom range then going for something that is a constant f2.8 would give you some noticeable benefits.

Taking 'sharper' pictures can be down to the lens but is more often down to technique and understanding the camera settings and a little down to processing the files properly also. If you haven't already, set the camera to only use the centre auto focus point and choose suitable apertures and shutter speeds yourself and you might find the kit lens is sharper than you think.
 
thanks for the reply
but out of those 2 lens which would be the better choice or is there a better walk about lens out there for a budget of about £250
 
What RP is saying, methinks, is that what you have in the 17-55 f4-5.6 USM kit lens wont really be improved on greatly with either of the 2 lenses you mention.

On one hand (canon) you'll get a greater zoom range, but that'll "probably" be at the expense of IQ as > 2.5X zoom range (28-105 =~ 4X) the compromises between zoom range and IQ start to become noticeable.

With the Sigma the increase in range isnt much to write about, but it does have a "macro" feature, I doubt that this is a true 1:1 macro, but will let you get a lot closer than the kit lens.

What you need to do is research what the reviews for the 2 possibles are and decide which features are going to fit your style of shooting best.

.. there is no right answer.
 
Something inside me is saying offload the Sigma 70-300 and get a 2nd hand 70-200 f/4L and a Kenko 1.4x T/C.

I think you could walkabout pretty much everywhere for your 250 quid with those and the 18-55.

Or am I missing something ?

Bob
 
Thanks for that
theres that many reviews to go through its confusing
but i will keep going and if i get stuck i will ask on here for help
 
The Sigma 17-70 is a far better lens than the Canon kit lens, I have owned both so should know, it has better colour reproduction, and is far sharper in the centre, edges are nothing brilliant ( very few wideangles are... ) but that's no big deal. It makes a great walkabout lens on a crop body. Having also owned the Canon 17-85 IS as well ( just thought I'd add another option ), the Sigma still beats that one too, although the IS was handy.

Samples from all 3:

Canon 18-55 kit Lens
145045085_KMa6U-L.jpg


Canon 17-85 IS
94603344_4inWn-L.jpg


Sigma 17-70
182388961_wit8j-L.jpg


Confused, yip thought you might be, I tried to get similar looking shots for you and as can be seen from 3 fairly non-descript holiday and golf snaps that the overall look of the photos don't show much difference, my opinion though is that the Sigma is easily best of the 3 as it showed up much better fine detail when looking at larger samples of any of the photos I took with it.

As for a 50mm I now own the F1.4 Canon and can honestly say that for the money, alongside my Sigma 500mm F4.5 it easily the sharpest lens I have owned ( not counting my Macro lens ), and that's coming from a list of previously owned lens' such as Canon 28-70 F2.8L, Canon 16-35 F2.8L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100-400 L IS, so I would be on the lookout for a S/H one of those for portraits, not expensive but once on your camera you will be loathe to take it off :D In fact I liked it that much I bought one for my dad too ;)

Both of these lens', the Sigma and 50mm F1.4 can be picked up for reasonable prices S/H, both around the £150 mark or less and I am sure you will be more than happy with both, just don't expect the Sigma to be able to compete with either of the Canon 50mm options ( F1.4 or F1.8 )

Mike.
 
Hi,
I have the Sigma 17-70 on a 400D as a general lens. I have found it to be a really good all round lens and would recommend it. It wouldn't stand up to a canon prime or a L equivilent but in its price range its a winner!

Cheers,

Duncan
 
You could also consider the sigma 24-70mm 2.8, although your losing some on the wide end you have the added benefit of the 2.8 throughout the range, if you get a good copy of this lens your on a winner, you can pick one up for about £220 now, HTH.
 
sigma 24-70mm 2.8 so this is another one to look at
would this make a better walkaround lens than the 17-70 if i kept my 18-55mm kit lens to
 
daveydw said:
sigma 24-70mm 2.8 so this is another one to look at
would this make a better walkaround lens than the 17-70 if i kept my 18-55mm kit lens to
Click to expand...

Trouble is you're duplicating range, no problem if you don't mind carrying loads of gear but I sort of got the impression you were looking for a single solution "walkaround" ?

Of course much depends on what you shoot, as I take 80% landscape shots I just couldn't do without 17mm. This might not be the case for you & the 24-70 with it's additional speed over the 17-70 (2.8 between 17-20mm only) might be ideal.


Here's a user review from a "Canon guy"..

http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/sigma_1770_test_report
 
To add my point, i was looking at the canon 17-85mm and the sigma 17-70mm and opted for the 17-70mm.
just wish i could get pictures of mikeyb quality with it now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top