Budget-ish lenses to buy

[southgate]

Some advice please..

I have a canon 350d + 18-55 "kit lens", the cheap but good canon 50mm f/2.8? and canon 70-200mm l f/4

I mainly like wildlife photography but also like experimenting with different things.
Was thinking of getting a macro lens plus a better all-rounder to replace the 18-55. Something wide angle with more zoom.

I can spend about 200-250 pounds per lens.

Any ideas?

[Greendubber]

I picked up a sigma 10-20mm a month or so ago, great lens, super wide.

[havoc]

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (the new one). Just about in your budget, includes lens hood within the box, has Macro facility, and (for a consumer lens) is sharper than a sharp thing that's just spent three years at University! Gets some very good reviews.

I went for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (no macro) instead as it seems to be slightly better built (don't expect anywhere near L-series quality from the Sigma!), but it was toss-a-coin between the two...

[Andy M]

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod85.html

[southgate]

Like the sound of the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Sample pics from http://www.shuttertalk.com/articles/sigma1850ex look impressive, with macro as well...

I'd like a general use lens, a bit longer than 18-50 though. Is there anything good around say 17-85mm?

Super wide lens will have to wait til next purchase.

[havoc]

28(24?)-105 or 28-135 Canons?

[southgate]

Was thinking of something like the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-f/5.6 IS USM for roughly £290

Any good?

[Simpo Two]

If I was on a budget I'd head for Sigma. Then you need to decide whether you want a big zoom range, or a large maximum aperture, as you can't have both in one lens. It depends on what you want to do and how you use your camera.

Another option is to buy second-hand, which would make everything more affordable, including Canon. Several of my lenses are mint s/h (70-200 f2.8, 60mm f2.8 micro, 80mm f2.8 TS) and they've been fine.

Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 11th June 10:26

[jamieboy]

I replaced the kit lens with my 400D with this Sigma 17-70.

photozone.de review

Might not be long enough or enough of a step up in quality for you, though.

[southgate]

Are you not that impressed by the 17-70's image quality jamieboy?

Whats the macro function like?

[kybo]

southgate said:

Was thinking of something like the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-f/5.6 IS USM for roughly £290

Any good?

I have this lens, coupled with a 350D and for most of the time it is a fantastic piece of kit. I've occasionally had trouble getting the shutter speeds I'd like in low light (probably more body than lens) but the build/image quality is good and the IS works well. Quick and quiet to focus.

Thanks,
Scott

[havoc]

kybo said:

southgate said:

Was thinking of something like the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-f/5.6 IS USM for roughly £290

Any good?

I have this lens, coupled with a 350D and for most of the time it is a fantastic piece of kit. I've occasionally had trouble getting the shutter speeds I'd like in low light (probably more body than lens) but the build/image quality is good and the IS works well. Quick and quiet to focus.

Thanks,
Scott

I've got a 2nd-hand one, and once-in-a-rare-occasion it goes soft (possibly just the autofocus not quite keying-in), but otherwise it's a quality piece of kit. Better than the 17-85IS, by all accounts (which has a very mixed rep).

My kit is:-
17-50f/2.8 Tamron
28-135IS f/3.5-5.6 Canon
70-300IS f/4-5.6 Canon
...and I need to get myself a 50mm f1/8 (or maybe a 1.4 if I'm feeling rich!)

[jamieboy]

southgate said:

Are you not that impressed by the 17-70's image quality jamieboy?

I'm the wrong person to ask, really.

I'm impressed with it, but:
a: The only thing I've got to compare it to is my old Fuji Z1
b: I've not really used it as much as I'd like to
c: I'm rubbish