Worth upgrading 18-55mm to IS version ?

PD_BARBS

PD_BARBS

Messages
984
Name
Peter Barber
Edit My Images
Yes
Well basically the question is in the title.

I have had my camera for just over a month, and not overly impressed with the kit lens, although I know most of it is my inexperience.

But I have seen rave reviews about the new IS version of the lens.

Would it be worth upgrading, will I see much of a difference, or should I save harder for something like the sigma 17-70mm
 
Joe T said:
From what I have read the new IS version isnt all that much better when it comes to general performance. I wouldnt bother upgrading.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but the reviews on this seem to be favourable, but I am sceptical of some of the reviewsI have read. If you point me to some impartial reviews that would be great.
 
i did this, i upgraded from the standard to the IS version, i still never used the IS version either, it got sold within a month and the money went towards my 24-105 F/4 L IS, much better lens :D
 
wez130 said:
i did this, i upgraded from the standard to the IS version, i still never used the IS version either, it got sold within a month and the money went towards my 24-105 F/4 L IS, much better lens :D
Click to expand...

Thanks Wez

I knew you had one, and this is as a good of verdict as I am likely to get, so hold fire and get something decent.
 
essentially, yes :), you'd get the sigma 18-50 F/2.8 for not much more and it's a much better lens.
 
wez130 said:
essentially, yes :), you'd get the sigma 18-50 F/2.8 for not much more and it's a much better lens.
Click to expand...

I looked into this, and it seems to be more than double the price, for the same money I would get a sigma 17-70mm, any thoughts on which of these is the best to save for.
 
i saw a 18-50 go on ebay the other day for under £150, the 17-70 is a good budget lens with the added capability of macro 1:2 (half life size), but remember it's not constant F/2.8, i think it all boils down to which you'd prefer, a constant F/2.8 EX (sigmas 'L' equiv) which will be more solid or the 'little gem' of sigmas range because that's what it is really, one of those lenses that perform well for not a lot of money.
 
I know this has probably be asked a dozen times before, but bear in mind I'm a novice, but what is the advantage of a constant aperature.
 
PD_BARBS said:
I know this has probably be asked a dozen times before, but bear in mind I'm a novice, but what is the advantage of a constant aperature.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty much just what it says on the tin. In other words, you can shoot at the same aperture throughout the range. If you have a varying aperture zoom, then at one length the max aperture will be different to at the other end. In practical terms this means you have less creative control at one end than at the other. Whereas a fixed aperture will allow you to zoom without worrying about when (or where!) the aperture will change.

To add to this, I just got the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and I'm delighted with it so far. Very sharp, quick to focus and was only £200 from OSD. I would recommend it!
 
petebarnes said:
I had a tamron 17-50 2.8 and it was a great replacement for the kit lens, but I don't think there is much between the Tamron and the Sigma
Click to expand...
No, from my research before buying there isn't a lot between them. But most reviews I looked at tended to favour the Tamron. It's pretty fifty-fifty though, yeah...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top