That question again

Matblack

Matblack

Messages
375
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
I know this has been asked a million times before in various forms and you guys are probably bored to hell with it but hopefully you'll help me to mull this over in my mind.

My trip to the Wildlife Heritage Foundation at the weekend has shown me that one of the pieces of equipment I have just isn't performing to the same standard as the others

This shot was taken with my 70-200 f4 L, God I love this lens!

3579259476_4ab12e0ace_o.jpg


As you can see its precise, sharp and every hair is visible on the subject

This next shot is taken with my Sigma 17-70mm

3580513917_21801c5595_o.jpg


and in my eyes it just doesn't cut it, the shot is no where near as precise and subject doesn't pop. I know the lighting is different in both situations and the subject too, but I really am starting to see the short comings of this lens. However there are still some things which it does beautifully as far as I am concerned.

3581324592_c9a21cc85d_o.jpg



Now I know I have a few choices; the default choice to replace the 17-70 should probably be the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS which I understand is a stunning lens (my father in law has this and seems very happy with it). It has a good zoom range, from quite wide on my 40d to a reasonable telephoto, it has IS, not something I've had before on any lens, and it opens up to a constant 2.8 which is as wide as the Sigma at its widest but retains it through the whole range. Surely this is a wise choice, despite being signficantly more it should hold its value and its made for crop cameras!

However I can't help but be drawn to the 17-40 f4L and the 24-105 f4L lenses. The reason being I know I'm happy with the 70-200 f4L, its sharp its has constant focus, it doesn't extend making it very convenient in use. Its black and it has a red ring around the end and well its 'L glass' isn't it?

With the 17-70 I'm shooting through the range of the lens, despite its less than perfect performance at the far end of the zoom and I'm using the "macro" ability too, so which ever way I go I'm probably going to be looking at getting a macro lens at some point too and possibly borrow a 10-20 to see if VWA is my thing.

Furture wise I'm not ruling out a 5D or a 1D but its going to be a fair way off in the future so I don't mind buying EF-S glass and selling it on later. I'm not fixated on L Glass lenses but the 70-200 has left a very big impression. My only exxperience of non-Prime/ non-L Canon lenses is the 18-55mm that came with my 300D and it was only when I ditched this that I saw the potential in my photography so I'm not hugely impressed with Canon 'mainstream'.

What do people suggest? With a 17-55 IS 2.8 'in the family' I should try and borrow it for a day and see if I like it and see how it compares with the 70-200 f4 but that means wrestling a brand new lens off my father in law :D

MB
 
I think you may be looking for snow where there is none falling.

Precious little, if anything, wrong with these pics - be content.
 
Must agree that your pics seem fine. The lighting in the first is fairly directional which is what makes it compared to the flat lighting in the second.

Of course if this thread is to convince your Mrs that you need a replacement, then sure go ahead, you need one! ;)
 
arclight said:
I think you may be looking for snow where there is none falling.

Precious little, if anything, wrong with these pics - be content.
Click to expand...

Thanks Arclight

Don't get me wrong I'm happy with all the shots above but having looked at everything I brought back from the trip, none of the shots taken with the 17-70 apart from the very close ups are quite as good as I would expect.

From the shots above only the middle one and the bottom one are from the Sigma, I put in the top one as a comparison as that is from the 70-200, the bottom one, the close up, I'm delighted with, the Sigma works well close up but from 50-70mm the shots just aren't sharp enough for my likeing and I think the Sigma is to blame, which is a shame because its a great lens over all.

MB
 
If you're not happy with the Sigma and it's in warranty, then why not send it off to get calibrated? I have just done that with my 100-400 and WOW what a difference. Even if it is psychological, I'm 100% happier with it now.

BTW the 17-55 2.8 IS is a total stunner - If you've got the dosh, go and get one, I love mine.
 
kalibre said:
Must agree that your pics seem fine. The lighting in the first is fairly directional which is what makes it compared to the flat lighting in the second.

Of course if this thread is to convince your Mrs that you need a replacement, then sure go ahead, you need one! ;)
Click to expand...

:lol:

It's more to convince myself!

I think the problem is that the shot above is one of my picks from 600 shots taken on the day and from ~150 taken on the 17-70 there are only one or two keepers where as with the 70-200 a lot more are sharp enough to take a decent crop and still hold up.

Maybe I need to slow down a bit, put the Sigma through a few more tests and see what is can do, as i say close in its a great piece of kit!

I'll see if I can get my hands on the 17-55 2.8 for a bit of testing.

MB
 
swag72 said:
If you're not happy with the Sigma and it's in warranty, then why not send it off to get calibrated? I have just done that with my 100-400 and WOW what a difference. Even if it is psychological, I'm 100% happier with it now.

BTW the 17-55 2.8 IS is a total stunner - If you've got the dosh, go and get one, I love mine.
Click to expand...

Good idea Sara, I'm tempted to do that anyway just to see if it is a bit off, its not at the wide end, its very precise but to the zoom end it becomes a little softer. I bought the lens second hand and I don't think its in warranty but I don't belive Simga charge all that much for a calibration so might just give it a go :)

MB
 
Calibration will probably cost you £30 or so. You may just find that you hit a sweet spot by stopping down a notch and not going to the extreme on the focal length. It's a painful compromise but some lenses are fussier than others.
 
kalibre said:
Calibration will probably cost you £30 or so. You may just find that you hit a sweet spot by stopping down a notch and not going to the extreme on the focal length. It's a painful compromise but some lenses are fussier than others.
Click to expand...

Fair point, I think these were shot at the extremes of the camera aperture and zoom, I'm a bit of a sucker for depth of field and tend to shoot wide open in Av mode most of the time :D

MB
 
I think you are suffering from your experience with the old kit lens, which was never one of Canon's finest (the current version is completely redesigned and much better, plus has IS). Then you have the 70-200 4 L IS which most certainly is one of Canon's best. Plus you like to shoot at maximum aperture where cheaper lenses are never that good.

You could get the Sigma checked, but unless there is actually something wrong with it, it won't make any difference. It is not a stella lens in L terms. The other L lenses you're looking at are obviously very good, but at short focal lengths there is a big penalty for their ability to cover full frame, which you don't need. The 17-40 L is a good example - less range than the EF-S 17-55 2.8, and only f/4.

I think you have already answered your own question - 17-55 2.8 is the obvious answer. I have it and agree with Sara. You are also uniquely advantaged in having this lens to hand from your FIL. It is L class in everything but build quality. You'll love it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top