Which 18-ish to 70-ish lens for Canon ?

Spy

Spy

Messages
465
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I have a Canon 30D with a 50mm (Nifty Fifty) and 75-300mm Canon lens.

I want to supplement these two with something in the lower zoom range - say 18-80. I can't afford the higher priced L type lenses so looking for something up to say £200-£250.

1) Is this the right thing to do or should I be looking for a different type of lens ?
2) Which zoom lens would you recommend in this range ?
3) I have read a good review on teh Sigma 17-70 Macro lens here http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/312-sigma-af-17-70mm-f28-45-dc-macro-test-report--review - does anyone have experience of this lens ?

Thanks for your help and advice :thumbs:
 
Meeten said:
I got that Sigma lens - liking it lots!!
They come up here now and again, so keep your eyes peeled.
Click to expand...

How do you find it in terms of picture quality and versatility ?
 
steve172 said:
After trying the Sigma 18-135mm lens and feeling rather disappoined I sent it back (OS was also faulty), I went for the Canon 17-85mm IS lens new at about £280. Very good lens indeed.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if you can compare one lens product to another. Even within the Canon range, one lens could be great and another could be crap.

Faulty product is a different issue.

With regard to your Canon 17-85, how do you find the quality of the photos ?
Is there significant curvature ?

Thanks :)
 
I've had both the Canon 17-85 and the sigma 18-125 OS and both are great lenses.

The Canon gives probably the better contrast and vivid colours, but it does distort more than the Sigma, and greater reach on the sigma. Can't comment on the failed OS mentioned by someone in the list above, mine was certainly fine.

Given the choice I'd go for the 18-125 sigma, as very nice lens and a brand new OS version is about £200-£250
 
Spy said:
I didn't see that. thanks.

I was just about to ask how you found it given it didn't have IS but no need to now !
Click to expand...


Without IS the 17-70mm was great but f2.8-4.5 meant it could be just a bit slower than I really wanted at between 30 & 50mm.
I now have the Siggy 18-50 which is a constant f2.8.

I like the extra flexibility of the wider aperture and although I don't do a lot of low light non flash photography I like the fact that the 18-50mm has a constant aperture albiet with a trade off on the length of the 17-70mm. It's there in case I need it which is more of a comfort blanket rather than a necessity.

I just hate zooming a lens in and watching the aperture reading close. Subconsciously I suppose it makes me feel like the camera is telling me what it is doing rather than me controlling it :cuckoo:
The stabilized version would effectively be my best of both worlds :)
 
I had the Sigma 17-70. Not the new OS version. Absolutely loved it. Let it go when I got my 24-105. Miss it very much !!
 
really not going to hark on about the 17-85 IS canon, as it's a lovely lens to use it it's massively flawed from a technical view.
the higher quality glass that goes from 17 ish mm goes only to 55mm or 35L mm for a reason

I would say sigma or tamron 17-50...without VC it's still a nice lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top