New lens advice requested

[tertius]

Now I realise that there are 8 pages of lens advice in a different thread, and I did think about asking there, but feared it would get lost ...

I have recently purchased a 350D, for which I have the following lenses:

Canon EF 28-90 F4-F5.6 II USM
Canon EF 75-300 F4-F5.6 III USM
(Both kit lenses from my film days (still have 2 Canon film bodies))
Sigma Asherical 28mm F1.8 EX DG Macro

I basically shoot two types of subject: people (usually the children) in a snapshot sort of way
and landscapes in a more arty sort of way.

Some (not very representative) pics of mine can be found here:
www.picturehosting.org/gallery.php?u=tertius&g=PH-Uploads
and here:
www.picturehosting.org/gallery.php?u=tertius&g=993-Carrera
and here:
www.picturehosting.org/gallery.php?u=tertius&g=Boxing-Day-Tunnel-Run

At the moment I'm finding that all my lenses are too long. Consequently the Sigma is on the camera most of the time, because its faster (though not to focus ...).

I'm thinking about what to get to fill this gap, and mainly thinking about zooms.

I'm considering the following:
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro £239.99
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC £309.99
Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM £426.00
Canon EF 17-40mm f4 LUSM £543

(the prices are for reference from WarehouseExpress).

I'm really hesitant to go to the Canon 17-40 because it is so much money, and my photography just doesn't warrant that level of expenditure.

The Sigma 17-70 is not out yet, and I'm vaguely concerned (because of the price) that it will prove to be compromised.

The Canon 17-85 seems to get some mixed reviews.

Which leaves the Sigma 18-50, which is where I'm tending right now.

So anyone got any experience of these lenses, or indeed some gratuitous advice to offer.

As a slight aside I visit the US fairly often so could buy there to save a little cash.

cheers

Dan

[robdickinson]

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro £239.99

As said not out yet tho I've seen some sample shots (well 'possible' sample shots) and its OK for the price. Nice range.

Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC £309.99

Supposed to be a decent lens.

Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM £426.00

Questions and doubts on this one, especialy for the price.

Canon EF 17-40mm f4 LUSM £543

Definatly the best of the 4 but pricey.


Personaly I'd wait a bit , see whats anounced at the photo show and how the 17-70 realy pans out.

[Andy M]

I and a few others here have had good dealings with Ian Kerr. Contact him at: [e-mail] for a quote

17-40 is a stormer by the way

[tertius]

Thanks all.

I guess I'm vaguely surprised that the Canon 17-40 is only F4. Would have thought for the money it would be a little faster.

I think you are right I will probably wait and see how the 17-70 turns out.

Dan

[simpo two]

Andy M said:

I and a few others here have had good dealings with Ian Kerr...

Hey, where's my rake-off for this pyramid?

[Andy M]

tertius said:

Thanks all. I guess I'm vaguely surprised that the Canon 17-40 is only F4. Would have thought for the money it would be a little faster. I think you are right I will probably wait and see how the 17-70 turns out. Dan

Why would you need more than (less than) f4 for landscape work? As a landscape lens there's not many better IMHO. I'm not currently tempted by the 16-35L and I do not see me using f2.8 for my landscape shots.

After rebates (now finished), I got my 17-40 for £380. That's a bargain in my book.

Sigma lenses don't really do it for me in the way Canon's do, but I wouldn't say no to their 15mm fisheye, or 150mm macro

[Andy M]

simpo two said:

Andy M said: I and a few others here have had good dealings with Ian Kerr... Hey, where's my rake-off for this pyramid?

[tertius]

Andy M said:

tertius said: Thanks all. I guess I'm vaguely surprised that the Canon 17-40 is only F4. Would have thought for the money it would be a little faster. I think you are right I will probably wait and see how the 17-70 turns out. Dan Why would you need more than (less than) f4 for landscape work? As a landscape lens there's not many better IMHO. I'm not currently tempted by the 16-35L and I do not see me using f2.8 for my landscape shots.

Well I wouldn't obviously. However, I'm expecting to also use this lens for a lot of the indoorsy people snappy stuff, where a) space is tight (hence the wide angle) and b) light levels are often lower.

I'd also add that the comment wasn't really because I need a massively fast lens, more my surprise that such an expensive lens wasn't massively fast.

[simpo two]

tertius said:

However, I'm expecting to also use this lens for a lot of the indoorsy people snappy stuff, where a) space is tight (hence the wide angle) and b) light levels are often lower.

Absolutely. Wide angle does not equal landscape.

Here's an example of where every molecule of glass counted: f2.8, 1/25th sec, ISO 800, +0.3EV. I can't wring the pips out of it any more than that!

[Andy M]

simpo two said:

tertius said: However, I'm expecting to also use this lens for a lot of the indoorsy people snappy stuff, where a) space is tight (hence the wide angle) and b) light levels are often lower. Absolutely. Wide angle does not equal landscape.

It was the "I basically shoot two types of subject: people (usually the children) in a snapshot sort of way and landscapes in a more arty sort of way" which lead me to ask the question.

It'd be <f2.8 for me all the way, but I don't see the need for landscapes.

[Bee_Jay]

Have you thought about the Canon EF-S 10-22? An extremely fun lens with an excellent image quality.

[tertius]

Andy M said:

simpo two said: tertius said: However, I'm expecting to also use this lens for a lot of the indoorsy people snappy stuff, where a) space is tight (hence the wide angle) and b) light levels are often lower. Absolutely. Wide angle does not equal landscape. It was the "I basically shoot two types of subject: people (usually the children) in a snapshot sort of way and landscapes in a more arty sort of way" which lead me to ask the question. It'd be <f2.8 for me all the way, but I don't see the need for landscapes.

You are quite right my original post did point you towards landscapes.

Bee_Jay said:

Have you thought about the Canon EF-S 10-22? An extremely fun lens with an excellent image quality.

No, I hadn't seriously considered it, mainly because that does seem extremely short to me. I'd also have to steel myself a bit to spend over 500 on a lens that I couldn't use with my film bodies.

Apologies for not replying sooner - I'm trying not to post on PH whilst at work.

Thanks again.

Dan

[simpo two]

tertius said:

film bodies.

Eh?

[tertius]

simpo two said:

tertius said: film bodies. Eh?

Earlier

tertius said:

A long question including ... (Both kit lenses from my film days (still have 2 Canon film bodies))

So in addition to the 350D I have 2 Canon 35mm bodies (300V and 30). Now I recognise that about 99% of my photography will be digital from now on, and I also recognise that some of the lenses I listed as considering are also digital only, however, they are quite a lot less than £500.

So I was simply thinking that if I were to spend £500-ish on the 17-40 the fact that it was also suitable for 35mm would be a small point in its favour and help to justify the (to me) astronomical cost.

Not entirely logical I know.

[Andy M]

simpo two said:

tertius said: film bodies. Eh?

Garlic bread?!! Garlic, and bread!!!

[simpo two]

tertius said:

So I was simply thinking that if I were to spend £500-ish on the 17-40 the fact that it was also suitable for 35mm would be a small point in its favour and help to justify the (to me) astronomical cost.

Don't buy the lens because it will fit two cameras you will never use, buy it because it will give you the results you want on the camera you WILL use.

[Bee_Jay]

simpo two said:

tertius said: So I was simply thinking that if I were to spend £500-ish on the 17-40 the fact that it was also suitable for 35mm would be a small point in its favour and help to justify the (to me) astronomical cost. Don't buy the lens because it will fit two cameras you will never use, buy it because it will give you the results you want on the camera you WILL use.

Exactly. I bought it originally as an unneccessary extravagance, but once I had it, I now love it and use it whenever I can - really makes you look at things differently and look for different shots!

[tertius]

simpo two said:

tertius said: So I was simply thinking that if I were to spend £500-ish on the 17-40 the fact that it was also suitable for 35mm would be a small point in its favour and help to justify the (to me) astronomical cost. Don't buy the lens because it will fit two cameras you will never use, buy it because it will give you the results you want on the camera you WILL use.

Very fair point.

Sigma 18-50 it is. Job done.

I couldn't justify the spend on the Canon 17-40.

Thanks all.

[simpo two]

Having looked at the 18-50 I don't know how Sigma manage to get so much light through a relatively small front.

While there, I saw the 17-70 f2.8-4.5: www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/17-70mm.htm

[tertius]

simpo two said:

Having looked at the 18-50 I don't know how Sigma manage to get so much light through a relatively small front. While there, I saw the 17-70 f2.8-4.5: www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/17-70mm.htm

I'll let you know how I get on.

However, I doubt if I'll be able to tell you how they manage to get all the light through. Unless it turns out it has holes in the side ...