New lens quandary......
Discussion
So I have a 1000d, and rather than spend money on a new body ( pointless really at the moment ) I figure I would spend it on a lens. I currently have :
10-20mm signma wideangle
18-55mm standard kit lens
50mm 1.8 prime
MK42 70-300 for long distance and macro stuff (bought cheap to try tele shots out)
2 sets of extension tubes ( mk42 and eos ones )
I would like to upgrade the kit lens now and I think I wold be very happy with my bag for a while.
Been looking around and seems that I could get canon 28-135mm ef lens for less than a £150. Not very wide at the bottom but I have the sigma if I want to go wide, and it would allow closer shots walking around.
I have also been looking at the sigma 17-70 2.8-4, for more money I could get one of those instead.
Right now I don;t know which to go for, the 28-135 has a long range ( save having to change to the old manual non AF MK42 lens ) but not wide at all on a crop sensor. The sigma looks the better lens and seem to fit the "hole" I have and would probably be the main lens if I got it, faster as well. Although more expensive, and trying to keep the cost of my new hobbie down at the moment as I already folded and shelled out £250 for the sigma wideangle.
Any thoughts or experiences? Apart from photography being a very slippery slope.
10-20mm signma wideangle
18-55mm standard kit lens
50mm 1.8 prime
MK42 70-300 for long distance and macro stuff (bought cheap to try tele shots out)
2 sets of extension tubes ( mk42 and eos ones )
I would like to upgrade the kit lens now and I think I wold be very happy with my bag for a while.
Been looking around and seems that I could get canon 28-135mm ef lens for less than a £150. Not very wide at the bottom but I have the sigma if I want to go wide, and it would allow closer shots walking around.
I have also been looking at the sigma 17-70 2.8-4, for more money I could get one of those instead.
Right now I don;t know which to go for, the 28-135 has a long range ( save having to change to the old manual non AF MK42 lens ) but not wide at all on a crop sensor. The sigma looks the better lens and seem to fit the "hole" I have and would probably be the main lens if I got it, faster as well. Although more expensive, and trying to keep the cost of my new hobbie down at the moment as I already folded and shelled out £250 for the sigma wideangle.
Any thoughts or experiences? Apart from photography being a very slippery slope.
My evolution through standard zooms has been:
EF-S 18-55
Sigma 17-70 (the old non stabilised one)
EF-S 18-55 IS
EF-S 15-85
The EF-S 18-55 IS was much sharper then the previous 2 and I think superb value.
The EF-S 15-85 obvilously has a more useful range, much better build quality and USM focusing, but to my eye doesn't offer noticeably better IQ than the EF-S 18-55 IS.
Not sure if the OP's 18-55 is the original non IS one, or the IS one. If the former an upgrade to the IS version is very worthwhile and cost effective, if he's already got the IS version the only lens that I would replace it with would be the EF-S 17-55. I wish I'd bought this instead of the 15-85.
EF-S 18-55
Sigma 17-70 (the old non stabilised one)
EF-S 18-55 IS
EF-S 15-85
The EF-S 18-55 IS was much sharper then the previous 2 and I think superb value.
The EF-S 15-85 obvilously has a more useful range, much better build quality and USM focusing, but to my eye doesn't offer noticeably better IQ than the EF-S 18-55 IS.
Not sure if the OP's 18-55 is the original non IS one, or the IS one. If the former an upgrade to the IS version is very worthwhile and cost effective, if he's already got the IS version the only lens that I would replace it with would be the EF-S 17-55. I wish I'd bought this instead of the 15-85.
RobDickinson said:
17-70 is OK but not spectacular.
That's my experience also.It's a useful range, f/2.8 at the short end is nice(although the tiniest nudge of the zoom ring away from 17mm puts you at f/4 very quickly) and the minimum focusing distance is very close - but in terms of overall IQ, it's a step backwards from the 18-55 IS.
Just for another idea. Seeing as you have the sigma already it may suit you but you can pickup a canon 24-105 f4 l IS on the bay for a shade more than a new sigma f2.8 24-70. Thats where I was thinking for my upgrade anyway. It's a tad annoying to loose the lower end but the kit at 18mm is all distorted anyway so I try to avoid it. I suppose being a EF lens the range is more reasonable on a non crop body. I just didnt see the point in spending on top EF-S lenses like the 17-55 is usm when it's L series money.
I just re read more carefully and they may all be a bit much the 24-105 goes for about 520 on ebay. I was mainly reaserching lenses that would offer much more clarity.
I just re read more carefully and they may all be a bit much the 24-105 goes for about 520 on ebay. I was mainly reaserching lenses that would offer much more clarity.
Edited by Buzz word on Friday 13th July 11:14
Thanks for the feedback guys, little things like the sigma only being 2.8 for a short range are things I would never know til I used it.
I think I will leave it and try and save for the lovely 24-105 L ( it was on the dream list before ) or if I fall short get a constant 2.8 sigma or tamron.
Thanks again.
Seight_Returns said:
in terms of overall IQ, it's a step backwards from the 18-55 IS.
That is the major thing, I want better images mainly not just longer range, I thought the two I were looking at would be better and more useful range wise. I think I will leave it and try and save for the lovely 24-105 L ( it was on the dream list before ) or if I fall short get a constant 2.8 sigma or tamron.
Thanks again.
I've just bought a Canon 35f/2 and 85f/1.8 to use alongside my current everyday zoom - rather than replace it with a better zoom.
They're more challenging to use than a zoom - the 85/1.8 in particular is making me realise how much I've come to take IS for granted, but I'm having a lot of fun and getting images that simply wouldn't be possible with any zoom and to my mind a much better place to put my money than upgrading a zoom at a point when the marginal increase in IQ vs material increase in cost is arguably not worth it - and I can just put the zoom back on when I can't be bothered.
Not sure if that's where your interest lies but perhaps something to think about.
Canon 28f/1.8 and Sigma 30f/1.4 also interesting options (if you're brave enough to play the Sigma quality control lottery).
They're more challenging to use than a zoom - the 85/1.8 in particular is making me realise how much I've come to take IS for granted, but I'm having a lot of fun and getting images that simply wouldn't be possible with any zoom and to my mind a much better place to put my money than upgrading a zoom at a point when the marginal increase in IQ vs material increase in cost is arguably not worth it - and I can just put the zoom back on when I can't be bothered.
Not sure if that's where your interest lies but perhaps something to think about.
Canon 28f/1.8 and Sigma 30f/1.4 also interesting options (if you're brave enough to play the Sigma quality control lottery).
Edited by Seight_Returns on Friday 13th July 18:32
Just to confuse things a bit more.
My dad recently returned from holiday and asked me to take a look at his 450D & kit lens. Looks like the lens motor died because it'll only run the focus motor one way (e.g. to infinity). He has a 55-250 and we talked about getting some more reach on his walkaround to cut the number of lens swaps. So I took a look around and it seems the 15-85 gets lots of praise, can be had for £500 from Kerso.
There is the cheaper 17-85 but it doesn't seem to be that great.
I have the 24-105 and like it but I don't think dad wants to lug around that sort of weight.
Any other thoughts?
My dad recently returned from holiday and asked me to take a look at his 450D & kit lens. Looks like the lens motor died because it'll only run the focus motor one way (e.g. to infinity). He has a 55-250 and we talked about getting some more reach on his walkaround to cut the number of lens swaps. So I took a look around and it seems the 15-85 gets lots of praise, can be had for £500 from Kerso.
There is the cheaper 17-85 but it doesn't seem to be that great.
I have the 24-105 and like it but I don't think dad wants to lug around that sort of weight.
Any other thoughts?
Seight_Returns said:
I've just bought a Canon 35f/2 and 85f/1.8 to use alongside my current everyday zoom - rather than replace it with a better zoom.
They're more challenging to use than a zoom - the 85/1.8 in particular is making me realise how much I've come to take IS for granted, but I'm having a lot of fun and getting images that simply wouldn't be possible with any zoom and to my mind a much better place to put my money than upgrading a zoom at a point when the marginal increase in IQ vs material increase in cost is arguably not worth it - and I can just put the zoom back on when I can't be bothered.
Not sure if that's where your interest lies but perhaps something to think about.
Canon 28f/1.8 and Sigma 30f/1.4 also interesting options (if you're brave enough to play the Sigma quality control lottery).
Cracking bit of kit that 85mm They're more challenging to use than a zoom - the 85/1.8 in particular is making me realise how much I've come to take IS for granted, but I'm having a lot of fun and getting images that simply wouldn't be possible with any zoom and to my mind a much better place to put my money than upgrading a zoom at a point when the marginal increase in IQ vs material increase in cost is arguably not worth it - and I can just put the zoom back on when I can't be bothered.
Not sure if that's where your interest lies but perhaps something to think about.
Canon 28f/1.8 and Sigma 30f/1.4 also interesting options (if you're brave enough to play the Sigma quality control lottery).
Edited by Seight_Returns on Friday 13th July 18:32
How are you finding the 35mm f2? Was thinking of picking one up - widest lens I have in my bag at the mo is 50mm...
flat-planedCrank said:
How are you finding the 35mm f2? Was thinking of picking one up - widest lens I have in my bag at the mo is 50mm...
So far so good - but still early days - only had it a week. So cheap that very little to lose by buying used from MPB and selling on on Ebay costs virtually nothing if it doesn't work out.I went through the same pain as everyone looking for a fast-ish standard-ish FOV prime for APS-C does.
EF 28/1.8 - Dodgy technical reviews, positive real world reviews, quite expensive even used.
Sigma 30/1.4 - Polarised reviews, those who get a good copy love them, many people claim poor copies but suspect that many poor reviews attributable to the very thin DOF f/1.4 gives and user error rather than real problems, but not I'm not brave enough to prove them wrong by putting my money where my mouth is.
EF 35/1.4L - No personal experience but read lots of reviews. Owners and technical reviewers love it. Bulky, expensive, from what I read doesn't offer much more IQ than the 35/f2 at equivalent apertures, out of my price range for the time being anyway.
EF 35/f2 = Cheap, small, light. Buzzy AF but seems very accurate. Nice sharp subjects and good isolation. Good colours. Would prefer slightly wider but no other option for the same money. Very happy so far but not entirely convinced that dumping my 15-85 and putting the extra money into a 17-55 would have been better. Ask me again in 2 weeks.
Edited by Seight_Returns on Friday 13th July 22:14
What sort of shots do you want to take? How does the lens choice relate to the subject matter? And the technique?
New toys are great. I love them. But sometimes what you are trying to shoot and how you plan to shoot it are far more satisfying when it works out.
I'm not sure that you are right to reject changing the body at this point. Certainly lenses are very important but I rather suspect that you may gain more from a body change than a lens change for what you seem to want to do. Let me put it like this. I am more impressed so far with what is possible putting a decent lens on a 600D body then I am putting the same lens on a 400D. The 400D is pretty much the camera that became the 1000D.
400D (and so by implication the 1000D) is a good enough camera and still has a lot to offer BUT a 600D would move the game some way and set you up for the next stages with the 'cost to change', if bought and sold well, being no more than the cost of a half decent lens. I think it's an option you might consider at this point as it would be quite easy to do a back to back comparison if you could get hold of a 600D body and an SD card for a short while.
New toys are great. I love them. But sometimes what you are trying to shoot and how you plan to shoot it are far more satisfying when it works out.
I'm not sure that you are right to reject changing the body at this point. Certainly lenses are very important but I rather suspect that you may gain more from a body change than a lens change for what you seem to want to do. Let me put it like this. I am more impressed so far with what is possible putting a decent lens on a 600D body then I am putting the same lens on a 400D. The 400D is pretty much the camera that became the 1000D.
400D (and so by implication the 1000D) is a good enough camera and still has a lot to offer BUT a 600D would move the game some way and set you up for the next stages with the 'cost to change', if bought and sold well, being no more than the cost of a half decent lens. I think it's an option you might consider at this point as it would be quite easy to do a back to back comparison if you could get hold of a 600D body and an SD card for a short while.
I recently upgraded from 18-55IS to 15-85 for my 500D, and contrary to what someone else said above I'm very happy with the step up in image quality, particularly sharpness. But then I always thought I didn't have a very good copy of the kit lens!
Still, the wider range is useful. It is a bit front heavy on the 500d, but you get used to it. A 17-55 is even heavier and may be too much, but I didn't try it.
Still, the wider range is useful. It is a bit front heavy on the 500d, but you get used to it. A 17-55 is even heavier and may be too much, but I didn't try it.
Tampon said:
I think I will leave it and try and save for the lovely 24-105 L ( it was on the dream list before ) or if I fall short get a constant 2.8 sigma or tamron.
Thanks again.
I rented a 24-105 paired with a 7D and was not that impressed with the consistency of the results BUT to be fair I was using it at race meetings for moving subjects which was possibly pushing it a bit.Thanks again.
About a year later I decided I needed to fill that gap in my coverage so bought one off eBay where the market price seems to sit around the £500-600 mark. It turned out to be a pristine hardly used example supplied as part of a 5DII kit. I have no idea whether it is a better example than the one I rented but it is very good especially on my 1D3.
If the price holds for a while it looks like it would make a good investment used. I'm not so keen at the new RRP numbers though, or the typical new street values.
Hub said:
I recently upgraded from 18-55IS to 15-85 for my 500D, and contrary to what someone else said above I'm very happy with the step up in image quality, particularly sharpness. But then I always thought I didn't have a very good copy of the kit lens!
I dont know who said what but the 15-85 is a superb lens, the only downside is no constant aperture/f2.8 but at the price and size...RobDickinson said:
I dont know who said what but the 15-85 is a superb lens, the only downside is no constant aperture/f2.8 but at the price and size...
The vignetting at the wide end is pretty bad too, although it's not something that can't be fixed in post. Other than that I'd agree, it really is a lovely lens. Just had my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 fail on me this week, so I have nothing good to say about it, or any other lens they happen to have made in the last 20 years. So disappointed. Focusing failed a few days ago - won't focus below 5feet, and if it does, you have to 'persuade' it to move to the 5ft to infinity range, and then the aperture became sticky as well. It now won't budge off f6.3 or so. Totally throws the camera.
Got a Canon 15-85 winging it's way to me to replace it.
Got a Canon 15-85 winging it's way to me to replace it.
Dogsey said:
The vignetting at the wide end is pretty bad too, although it's not something that can't be fixed in post. Other than that I'd agree, it really is a lovely lens.
Problem there for me is that yes you can fix it in post, but your pushing the corners a stop (or whatever) before you do any other corrections.Had my Canon 15-85 a day now, just put a couple of thousand shots through it - love this lens. Not sure it'll be coming off anytime soon. Love the range of the lens, and I'm not hugely technical (i'm sure RD will know more) but the viewfinder is just so much more colourful and bright compared to my old Sigma (pos).
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff