Would i be mad?

wez130

wez130

Steak,wedges and a pint
Messages
2,242
Edit My Images
Yes
So, as you know, i've been loking for a replacement for the 18-55 kit lens as a walkabout lens, i've mainly been considering Sigmas F/2.8 variants of the 18-50, 24-60, 24-70 etc then i've just been reading reviews of the new Canon 18-55 IS lens and to be honest, it's getting some damn good reviews and sample images look great, they've played with the optics and added an Aspherical coat. it uses canon's new 4 step IS system which removes my need for a faster lens and the best bit, it's only just over £100. The only downside i can see is i won't get the DOF at 2.8 or even a constant 2.8 but should i care?

So, should i save a £150 and go for this or get a constant 2.8 lens as was my original intention?
 
It depends on if you need a shallow depth of field, because your already increasing the DOF using a crop sensor, so adding to that the lens aperture.

The Sigma 24-70 2.8 is a superb piece of kit for the money, cant comment on the others as I havent used them.

If all else was equal I would go for the 2.8 aperture over IS anyday.
 
Why do you want to replace your kit lens? What would you like to do, that it isn't letting you do? Answer that, and we can tell you what would be a good upgrade path.
 
StewartR said:
Why do you want to replace your kit lens? What would you like to do, that it isn't letting you do? Answer that, and we can tell you what would be a good upgrade path.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, the kit lens is just that, poorly made to a bargain price, IQ is 'adequate' to get you started.


What i want is a Faster lens or IS (IS negates the need for a faster lens as it's equivelent of 4 stops) + better IQ, the new 18-55 is very sharp, even close to the edges it is from the samples i've looked at, it has lower CA etc. Plus it's £150 cheaper than my other options leaving my nearly enough cash for a 580EX mk2.
 
wez130 said:
Faster lens or IS (IS negates the need for a faster lens as it's equivelent of 4 stops)
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.... a fast lens means you can get fast shutter speeds, whereas an IS lens means you can hand-hold with slower shutter speeds. If your subjects are reasonably stationary then IS is preferable, but if they're moving then a faster lens would be preferable.
 
my subjects are nearly always stationary.
 
There will come a time when you want reasonable shutter speeds in low light. Add a 50mm 1.8 to your list and you would be covered for when the IS lens can't stop the subject movement.
 
the 50 1.8 is in my shopping list already, along with the 100-400, after that, my lens collection is complete (util i feel an upgrade looming :D
 
Personally, I wouldn't. I'm in the same boat as you: I currently have an 18-55mm lens and would like a new lens. I know when walking about how handy a bigger zoom would be. Since it will be your second lens, I would go for something with a little more zoom 105? 200 maybe even 300? Or something wider, depending on what you shoot.
 
From what I have been reading the 17-55 is the mutts nutts, It's constant 2.8 with IS and USM, Is comparable to L glass apart from the build. When the time comes to replace my kit lens this is the one to go for, I won't be going to full frame for a long, long time (if ever) so it being an ef-s lens doesn't bother me. But it's around 500 notes so it's expensive compared to the sigma's. The other cheaper alternative I was considering was the 17-85.
 
Steven001 said:
Personally, I wouldn't. I'm in the same boat as you: I currently have an 18-55mm lens and would like a new lens. I know when walking about how handy a bigger zoom would be. Since it will be your second lens, I would go for something with a little more zoom 105? 200 maybe even 300? Or something wider, depending on what you shoot.
Click to expand...

i've got a bigger zoom, i have 70-200F/4 L, then if i need to go higher i've got a X2 converter
 
WanderingMind said:
From what I have been reading the 17-55 is the mutts nutts, It's constant 2.8 with IS and USM, Is comparable to L glass apart from the build. When the time comes to replace my kit lens this is the one to go for, I won't be going to full frame for a long, long time (if ever) so it being an ef-s lens doesn't bother me. But it's around 500 notes so it's expensive compared to the sigma's. The other cheaper alternative I was considering was the 17-85.
Click to expand...


and i'm looking at £500odd quid for this, which i haven't got to spend. :)

money no object i'ds probably buy the 17-40 F/4L
 
well, i've just thought, what have i got to lose?

I've just paid £85 inc for a brand new 18-55 IS + 58mm Hoya UV filter, it's coming from hong kong. As long as i don't get stung by customs i can make money on it if i don't like it plus i can sell my kit lens now which will ay for half of it.

So, i'll give a review when i get it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top