Update: Sigma 50-150 2.8? - Where to go next with lenses?

G

GEH007

Messages
279
Edit My Images
No
I've bought a few lenses since getting my 40D, and am now wondering where next? It might be time to start replacing/trading as opposed to just adding, but not sure what to consider next?

I enjoy shooting landscape, urban/city/architecture and people (natural not studio or posed). At this stage I've no real interest in sports or creatures.

The collection at them moment is:

10-20 Sigma
17-50 2.8 Tamron
28-135 Canon IS
50 Canon 1.8
100-300 Canon

It's the 28-135 that perhaps sticks out to me now as maybe not sitting right, but I do like it as a walkabout lens, albeit not for urban as not wide enough.

I'm happy with the shortest 2 and the telephoto doesnt get a great deal of use as I dont really do sport or wildlife so cant see the point of upgrading that as its already a decent lens. The 50mm doesnt get that much use but for the value its a non starter not having it.

So, any ideas for a next step?
 
Well if you ask me, it looks as though you are pretty much sorted......
So you don't want a longer zoom?
Or a macro?
I'd be well happy with what you've got, unless you want to start getting L's

How's about a flash?
Or a decent tripod?
Filters?
Etc..............
 
Thanks for your replies chaps, I think your probably right!

I think upgrading the 28-135 for a 24-105L might be logical at some point but apart from that Im struggling I think. Macro doesnt appeal, nor longer zoom really.

Perhaps it IS time to stick :LOL:
 
what about trading the 10-20 for the canon 10-22? My mate has one as its sensational.
 
Steveo_Hants said:
what about trading the 10-20 for the canon 10-22? My mate has one as its sensational.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input.

Ive only just bought the 10-20 based on trying this and a Canon 10-22 funnily enough. I really couldnt spot sufficient difference to warrant the fairly hefty premium of the Canon to be honest. And I thought the Sigma was better at or near the 10mm end.
 
You are suffering lens lust. It's common... :D I would simply ditch the 28-135mm as it's too long for walkabout. Ditto 24-105mm L on a crop body. 17-85mm IS is better, or 18-200mm IS.

But to extend your photo options, a macro would do that (get one, and you'll see :LOL: ) so would a good flash, or maybe some studio lights.

I would also question the nifty fifty, which I also have, but never use as it's too long for crop. So I got a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is nice, and I even use it very occasionally.

If you really want to hit the gadget-panic button, then flog the lot and go full-frame L. Or Nikon :eek: That'll keep you quiet for ages.

Richard.
 
I would agree with previous comments that the 28-135 is the one to possibly change or upgrade.I chose the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 to cover this focal range.It perfectly compliments your 17-50 and of course gives you the added benefit of a constant f/2.8.Its
well made and not too big---Decent IQ too.
Cheers.
 
You seem to have the range fairly well covered, my only suggestion would be to start swapping some of the variable aperture stuff for f/2.8 and faster glass, but only if you feel the need to splurge the cash ;)
 
TheWombat said:
I would agree with previous comments that the 28-135 is the one to possibly change or upgrade.I chose the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 to cover this focal range.It perfectly compliments your 17-50 and of course gives you the added benefit of a constant f/2.8.Its
well made and not too big---Decent IQ too.
Cheers.
Click to expand...

That's sounds like a decent shout but have read one or two mixed things about this lens, anyone any other experience of this? Cheers.
 
GEH007 said:
That's sounds like a decent shout but have read one or two mixed things about this lens, anyone any other experience of this? Cheers.
Click to expand...

Right guys, I need some input please. I've read some more very good stuff on this lens, and a one or two concerns over QC / front focussing.

I have found a brand new one for only 350 which is a good 100 at least less than the going rate, seems a bargain for 50-150 2.8.

Please, any views, personal or third hand??

Cheers.
 
Is it the mkI or the mkII? Price suggests a mkI being sold cheaply as old stock :shrug:
 
pxl8 said:
Is it the mkI or the mkII? Price suggests a mkI being sold cheaply as old stock :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yep its a MkI but from what I can find out, some MKIs had close up focus issues, but the last run prior to the change were pretty much fine, so at that seems a bargain to me, brand new UK model with 3 year warranty if anything amiss. Unless you wise people put me straight, seems a bit of a steal.
 
50-150 makes no sense to me for your setup you would be better investing in a better walkabout lens to replace the 28-135, I would go the 17-85 is
 
Sigma warranty is pretty good.Sounds like a good deal to me.
Good luck and enjoy.
 
Thanks for your input

ppp said:
50-150 makes no sense to me for your setup you would be better investing in a better walkabout lens to replace the 28-135, I would go the 17-85 is
Click to expand...

The 50-150 would be to replace the 28-135/ Dont see the point in the 17-85 as I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8, besides I'd say the 17-85 is a step down optically on the 28-135 anyway.

marky_h said:
:plus1: - cracking piece of glass :D...probably the best walkaround for a crop body (y)
Click to expand...

Yes the 17-55 is a belter but for the price difference I really cannot see it being so much better than the Tamron 17-50 2.8 I have surely?

TheWombat said:
Sigma warranty is pretty good.Sounds like a good deal to me.
Good luck and enjoy.
Click to expand...

Yeah seems like a good deal for fast glass. Decisions, decisions!
 
I have a Mk1 50-150 2.8, the only niggle is that it has a shocking minimum focusing distance that I don't even think is as good as Sigma claim (over a metre, getting on for two metres at 150mm), lots of discussion in the Flickr groups about this and I believe it's improved in the Mk2 version. Probably won't be an issue out on the streets etc, but it's worth considering if your shooting style would be hindered by it. Anyone who has had other issues has just got another copy, and to be honest that's fairly usual with Sigma.

Not had any other issues so far, focus is quick, accurate and hasn't failed me yet. The most important thing for me is that it gets used, I used to own a Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-S, and whilst it was mind blowing, it was too big for me to use away from motorsport/zoo trips. This 50-150 slips in my bag easily, is light and fairly discreet, and therefore goes with me everywhere.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/sets/72157611075294126/
 
Well I've taken the plunge and bought one. I managed to find a mint one 2nd hand for good money that focuses fine.

I'll hang on to the 28-135 for a while and see how I get along with the Sigma but all being wll will probably then sell it. Although the Sigma is 2.8, will I miss the IS of the Canon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top