hi everyone!
within the next few weeks i am buying myself a canon 40d, and a sigma 10-20mm lens.
eventually i want to get something which can zoom in farther, for those rare instances when i do need to zoom in (95 % of the time on the 18 mm lens i have now, i want to fit more in).
do you have any ideas of what i should purchase next?
heres what i'm thinking of so far (open to suggestions)
28-135
17-85
17-40
18-55
what do you think?
Which lens next
Which lens next
Jamey Pyles
Re: Which lens next
Go for the 17-40. It's the highest quality lens on your list. I recently got that one and it is great. You get professional grade build and image quality for the price of a lower grade lens. It doesn't have IS unlike the other 3 lenses you mentioned, but I haven't found that to be an issue as I carry a tripod most of the time anyway. The color saturation is a lot better than the 18-55 kit lens. The 18-55 is pretty good at 18mm but not very good at 55mm, and you already have 18mm covered in your wide lens. Its build quality is really bad and mine has focus issues. I always feel like it might fall apart when I use The other 2 lenses are good if you need the extra reach, but the image quality and build quality aren't up to the 17-40. You could also consider a 24-70 or 24-105 zoom lens to cover the range directly above your 10-20mm lens, but both are more expensive than the 17-40. Good luck, and great choice on getting a 40D.
Casey
Casey
Re: Which lens next
thanks casey!!!
i have one more to add to this list...
sigma 17-70 lens. what do you think?
i have one more to add to this list...
sigma 17-70 lens. what do you think?
Jamey Pyles
Re: Which lens next
If you can afford it, get the 17-40 L, it simply trounces the others in terms of sharpness and quality. But...it costs $600-700 However, if you need to be frugal, I'd grab either the Canon 28-135 or the Sigma 17-70. I've had the 18-55 and the 17-85 in the past. The 18-55 (non IS version) was pretty sharp but felt like a toy. The 17-85 has IS but had serious problems with fringing. I replaced it with the Sigma 17-70 and I freeking LOVE it. Very sharp, stops open to 2.8, doubles as a macro lens. No IS, so if you think you'll be shooting hand held a lot, then the 28-135 would be a little advantageous there. However, I've found the 17-28mm range to be very useful and you'd likely miss it if you have to deal with the gap between 20mm and 28mm. The 17-70 and the 28-135 cost about the same.
Also, if you have the money to get the 10-20 AND the 17-40, I would STRONGLY consider getting the Canon 10-22mm instead of the Sigma 10-20, then picking between the 17-70 and the 28-135 to fit it all within your budget. The 10-22 is a much better lens than the 10-20. I can't count how many pictures were ruined because my 10-20 wasn't aligned properly on the edges even after sending it in to be calibrated. I replaced it with the 10-22 and haven't looked back.
(my current kit is the 40D, Canon 10-22, Sigma 17-70 and Sigma 70-300)
Also, if you have the money to get the 10-20 AND the 17-40, I would STRONGLY consider getting the Canon 10-22mm instead of the Sigma 10-20, then picking between the 17-70 and the 28-135 to fit it all within your budget. The 10-22 is a much better lens than the 10-20. I can't count how many pictures were ruined because my 10-20 wasn't aligned properly on the edges even after sending it in to be calibrated. I replaced it with the 10-22 and haven't looked back.
(my current kit is the 40D, Canon 10-22, Sigma 17-70 and Sigma 70-300)
Re: Which lens next
well, thanks... i'm pretty sure i want the sigma... i have seen many great pictures, and the reviews say it is sharper than the 10-22. the canon also costs like 150$ more...
for the 17-70 and 17-40.... i'll have to see how it all works out. if i can find a nice deal on the 17-40, i'll take it, but otherwise, i'm thinking of the sigma from the reviews i have seen.
thanks for your input!
for the 17-70 and 17-40.... i'll have to see how it all works out. if i can find a nice deal on the 17-40, i'll take it, but otherwise, i'm thinking of the sigma from the reviews i have seen.
thanks for your input!
Jamey Pyles
Re: Which lens next
The Sigma can produce results almost equal to that of the Canon if, AND THIS IS A BIG IF, you get a properly calibrated unit. I've talked with people who have had no problems with it at all, but the Canon is without a doubt a better lens. It took me a while to notice the defects, but once I saw them, I became VERY disenchanted with mine and like I said, they didn't get fixed even after I sent it in to have it tweaked at the factory. Swapping to the Canon was well worth the extra $150.pyles_94 wrote:well, thanks... i'm pretty sure i want the sigma... i have seen many great pictures, and the reviews say it is sharper than the 10-22. the canon also costs like 150$ more...
Re: Which lens next
i'm going to buy the lens at kits camera or another store(not online) and if i get defects or anything with the sigma i'll swap it out or buy the canon lens...
so i presume that your 17-70 doesnt have these issues?
so i presume that your 17-70 doesnt have these issues?
Jamey Pyles
Re: Which lens next
No, the 17-70 is great.
Re: Which lens next
Another idea is to go for a 70-300IS lens. It really depends on what you want to shoot. This is a decent lens for cropped sensors. The edge image quality isn't so hot for full-frame, but for the camera you're getting, it can work really well... not only for shooting birds and such, but also for distant landscapes. The IS is really a must with this lens (don't bother with the non-IS version).