Upgrading Lenses and Equipment - Choices!!

Will James

Will James

Messages
526
Name
Will
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I'll try to keep this as succinct as possible. At the moment I have a Canon 500D, 18-55 kit lens, 50 1.8 and Tamron 70-300 SP VC USD.

I have around £1200-1500 to play with over the next few months. Around £600 will be used for a 430 EXII or 580 EX, CF Tripod, Black Rapid Strap, Diffuser and various filters for new lenses. This leaves me with £600-900 to spend on lens(es)

I have done hours of research on the internet in the last few weeks, and have come up some ideas for my gear, but I need all of your help based on experience to help me decide which is best for my uses.

My needs:

  • A lens to replace my 18-55 kit lens but also to use as a walkaround lens so I don't have to change lenses too often (don't mind changing a bit). Ideally this will also be a good portrait lens, including for indoor group portraits (think birthday parties, anniversaries, etc). For this I've rounded down to the Sigma 17-50 OS HSM, Sigma 30 1.4 HSM or Canon 17-55 2.8.

  • However, purchasing the latter would mean I am not able to buy an UWA. I'd like to purchase an UWA is because I've heard they are a must for travelling - I'm going to France, Turkey and possibly China this year. In your opinion, is this necessary? Would it be worth going for the 17-55 2.8 or is it better to get the Sigma 17-50 and 10-20?

Here is how my gear would look to give a better perspective:

Buying the Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 30 1.4:

  • Sigma 10-20
  • Sigma 30 1.4
  • Canon 50 1.8
  • Tamron 70-300 VC USD

The idea being I can keep the 10-20 on when exploring towns, cities, and general travelling contextual stuff, can also use the 30 1.4 for portraits indoors/low light photography (and also while travelling). One concern is whether a 30 1.4 could be used as a walkaround lens - is it wide enough? Also is it wide enough for indoor portraits? Would I miss the difference between 20-30mm and 30-50mm?

Buying the Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM:

  • Sigma 10-20
  • Sigma 17-50 2.8
  • Canon 50 1.8
  • Tamron 70-300 VC USD

Although the 17-50 will be much more versatile for indoor portraits, I will only have the nifty fifty for low light. However, I'll have all focal lengths covered from 10-50mm.

Buying the Canon 17-55 2.8:

  • Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM
  • Canon 50 1.8 II
  • Tamron 70-300 VC USD

Obviously the disadvantages of this are no UWA and no wider low-light lens below 50mm.

Sorry if this has been a bit long-winded, but I'm dying to know what you feel would be best for the requirements I have mentioned. I got a call from a friend tonight to ask if I can photograph a birthday party indoors this Saturday so I would like to get my new equipment then so that I can offer much better quality photos than with my kit lens.

Also, if any of you are strobists is there any reason I should buy the 430 EXII over the 580 EX (Mark I) given I have to choose between these two?

I will greatly (hugely!) appreciate any advice.

Regards
Will.
 
I understand that my post was a bit long but I would really appreciate some advice here as I'm not sure what to do regarding my kit.

Will.
 
I assume given what you have said you're looking to buy new?

Personally if I were in your position I would get the 17-55 IS second hand and look at the samyang 14mm or possibly 8mm fisheye (if it floats your boat!)

Although you could probably find a reasonable 10-20 second hand within your budget...
 
Hi Adam,

Thanks for your reply.

I don't mind buying second hand - if I do is it worth checking the manufacture year for the lens or anything else, or are second hand lenses usually fine?

The Samyang 14mm looks good, I haven't used the brand before but I imagine they're high quality? I also like the fact its 2.8 too so I can get some better quality indoor shots than with the 10-20.

The only thing I am concerned about is that if I buy the 17-55 will I use it enough when I'm out and about if I have a UWA lens. I suppose I could buy an UWA first and see how much I swap over to my 18-55 - if I use it enough I can upgrade to a 17-55?
 
Hi I'd forget the sigma 30 f/1.4 as it is a soft lens even stoped down. I bought the Tamron 17-50 and had to return it twice as it miss focused and was soft everywhere but the centre, although the first copy was noticebly sharper than the first one but it made a horrid sound as i zoomed, tried the sigma 17-50 too and I wasn't impressed, I went for the Canon 15-85 is usm and boy am I glad I did! It has fast and silent AF and it's the sharpest at equal apertures.. And it's wide enough to use for traveling stuff like buildings etc.
I personally would sell the 50 f/1.8 and get the 50 f/1.4

Canon 50 f/1.4
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is usm or 15-85 is usm f/3.5-5.6
Tamron 70-300 vc USD
 
Hi,

Thanks for your comments. I was just reading more about the 15-85 and it seems like a good contender! From your experience is 15mm wide enough on a crop body for good architecture and landscape shots? I know it will be good for travelling, but I want to make sure it is wide enough for inside cathedrals and other buildings when I'm travelling more locally.

That's also a good point about the 50 1.4, I've wanted to upgrade to it for a while now!

I know a lot of people go through the 15-85 vs. 17-55 dilemma but as I'm buying a 430ex II today and have a low light prime I don't see the need for 2.8 and value the extra 30mm to pick out details when travelling.
 
The sigma 30mm is a sharp lens, lucky 13 must have had a bad copy. Its a little soft at f1.4 (often due to bad technique- the DOF is tiny) but stopped down its very sharp. However, I would be replacing the kit 18-55 as a priority and there are a number of good lenses out there to do it. The canon 17-55 is the best of the lot but you pay for it. I am waiting for mine to be delivered! ;) I have used the 15-85 and it is a great lens, sharp and renders nicely. The AF is fast and the IS very effective. However it is relatively slow and as I am used to shooting with f2.8 available I sold it on. The tamron 17-50 non-is is supposedly the best of the 3rd party lenses and would be worth a look. I actually have an old sigma 18-50 f2.8 ex dc at present that perform very well for the money but once the 17-55 comes it will be being sold on.

Edit- do you use the 70-300 much? If you want to improve that then the 70-200 f4L is a great lens and very good value second hand!
 
Will James said:
[*]However, purchasing the latter would mean I am not able to buy an UWA. I'd like to purchase an UWA is because I've heard they are a must for travelling - I'm going to France, Turkey and possibly China this year. In your opinion, is this necessary? Would it be worth going for the 17-55 2.8 or is it better to get the Sigma 17-50 and 10-20?
Click to expand...

Since when is an UWA lens a must.........had a 10-22mm for years, barely got used, it was a very expensive piece of plastic sitting in my kit, just recently sold it.

A general walkaround lens, probabably the 15-85mm is ideal for your cropped sensor, major step up from the 17-85mm that it replaces. The 17-55mm f2.8 is another ideal lens, plus it would give you that extra f-stops of light for indoor photography. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non IS) is another option.

Portrait lenses, well the 85mm is probably the one that most FF people go for, but as you have a cropped sensor the 50mm f1.4 is a really nice lens, the other option is a 70-200mm f2.8 (non IS) which is an ideal partner, but might be outside of your price range unless you do some juggling of £££ and kit, rather than the tamron 70-300mm (perhaps sell some of your current kit to help funds).

Personally, I would look at used equipment, you'll be able to get more kit for your $$$, mpb photographic, ffordes, mifsuds, park camera's, camtech are all good places to get an idea on prices and perhaps concentrate more on kit for your holiday rather than trying to get everything
 
menthel said:
The sigma 30mm is a sharp lens, lucky 13 must have had a bad copy. Its a little soft at f1.4 (often due to bad technique- the DOF is tiny) but stopped down its very sharp. However, I would be replacing the kit 18-55 as a priority and there are a number of good lenses out there to do it. The canon 17-55 is the best of the lot but you pay for it. I am waiting for mine to be delivered! ;) I have used the 15-85 and it is a great lens, sharp and renders nicely. The AF is fast and the IS very effective. However it is relatively slow and as I am used to shooting with f2.8 available I sold it on. The tamron 17-50 non-is is supposedly the best of the 3rd party lenses and would be worth a look. I actually have an old sigma 18-50 f2.8 ex dc at present that perform very well for the money but once the 17-55 comes it will be being sold on.

Edit- do you use the 70-300 much? If you want to improve that then the 70-200 f4L is a great lens and very good value second hand!
Click to expand...

Hi,

Regarding the 17-55, I'm not sure I need the 2.8 or not - what is it that makes you need the 2.8 (apart from the fact that you're used to it).

As for my 70-300, I only bought it in January and as I've been at Uni have only used it on one occasion. The 70-200 f4 looks amazing but I think I'd prefer the IS and extra reach of the tamron. I bought it for local race track shooting (castle combe) and for zoos/wildlife parks.
 
pete.rush said:
Since when is an UWA lens a must.........had a 10-22mm for years, barely got used, it was a very expensive piece of plastic sitting in my kit, just recently sold it.

A general walkaround lens, probabably the 15-85mm is ideal for your cropped sensor, major step up from the 17-85mm that it replaces. The 17-55mm f2.8 is another ideal lens, plus it would give you that extra f-stops of light for indoor photography. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non IS) is another option.

Portrait lenses, well the 85mm is probably the one that most FF people go for, but as you have a cropped sensor the 50mm f1.4 is a really nice lens, the other option is a 70-200mm f2.8 (non IS) which is an ideal partner, but might be outside of your price range unless you do some juggling of £££ and kit, rather than the tamron 70-300mm (perhaps sell some of your current kit to help funds).

Personally, I would look at used equipment, you'll be able to get more kit for your $$$, mpb photographic, ffordes, mifsuds, park camera's, camtech are all good places to get an idea on prices and perhaps concentrate more on kit for your holiday rather than trying to get everything
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I think I'd value the extra range at both ends of the 15-85 rather to the 17-55, and I'm struggling to think of why I would use 2.8 indoors when I have the 50 1.8 and also a flash that can be used with a 15-85.

As for the 70-200, I would have to look at my ££££ depending what else I get.

I think I'll go for the 50 1.4 upgrade as I'll get something towards it from my kit lens and 50 1.8.

Thanks for those list of places for second hand gear, I'll take a look!
 
Last edited:
Will James said:
Hi,

Regarding the 17-55, I'm not sure I need the 2.8 or not - what is it that makes you need the 2.8 (apart from the fact that you're used to it).

As for my 70-300, I only bought it in January and as I've been at Uni have only used it on one occasion. The 70-200 f4 looks amazing but I think I'd prefer the IS and extra reach of the tamron. I bought it for local race track shooting (castle combe) and for zoos/wildlife parks.
Click to expand...

If you don't need the f2.8 then the 15-85 is a great choice. Its all pros and cons- remember the f2.8 is not just about low light, its depth of field control too.

As for the 70-200, it will kick the tamron from here to next week with its IQ but it sounds like you need to use the 70-300 more to work out if you need that focal length covered with a better lens.

As for the UWA- get used to your standard zoom first and then see if you need one- 27mm FF equlivalent (from a 17mm on crop) is actually rather wide and the 24mm equivalent from the 15-85 is even better.

Don't let a forum dictate what kit to get- its great for suggestions but one person's idea of great kit won't suit another. Shoot what you have, work out where you are missing something (either IQ, focal length or aperture) and go from there!
 
Will James said:
Hi,

Thanks for your comments. I was just reading more about the 15-85 and it seems like a good contender! From your experience is 15mm wide enough on a crop body for good architecture and landscape shots? I know it will be good for travelling, but I want to make sure it is wide enough for inside cathedrals and other buildings when I'm travelling more locally.

That's also a good point about the 50 1.4, I've wanted to upgrade to it for a while now!

I know a lot of people go through the 15-85 vs. 17-55 dilemma but as I'm buying a 430ex II today and have a low light prime I don't see the need for 2.8 and value the extra 30mm to pick out details when travelling.
Click to expand...

Good choice sticking with ur 70-300 as it is a stunning piece of kit and yes I do find 15mm plenty of wide enough for architecture. I had a 10-22 on my wish list but since I bought the 15-85 I have deleted the 10-22 of my wish list as at least for me 15mm is more than wide enough. As for the siggy 30mm I tried 2 copies as I wanted this lens to be good and it just wasn't at any aperture most reviews on the net will back that up but at least that was my experience with it and I went to try it in the shop as I wanted the reviews to be wrong and unfortunately they weren't. As for the 50mm F/1.4 it is the sharpest lens I have used from f/2 as well as the 100mm L macro IS USM, But the 50 is no less sharper than the 100L. As I'm sure there are plenty of other sharp lenses out there but at much higher price tag.
And I think choosing the 15-85 over the 17-55 is a good move too, well it was for me anyway as I yet haven't said I wish I could step down to f2.8 although that is when the 50 f1.4 would come in as many f/2.8 zooms are soft wide open and a prime will always beat the zoom for low light.
 
I still can't decide which to get out of the 15-85 or the 17-55. I don't think I have enough travelling experience with a DSLR to be able to know whether I'll need the 2.8 of the 17-55 or the range of the 15-85.

It is so frustrating! You've all given great advice, but I'm still wondering what people mean when they say they 'need' the 2.8 and hence why they went for the 17-55 over the 15-85. Is it because the smaller DOF allows you to be more creative? Or you prefer to shoot indoors with variable zoom as opposed to a prime?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top