'Walkaround' Lens for XTi??

[Viky]

Hi everybody,

I'll be traveling abroad next week and its the ideal time to get some new gear!

I currently have the following Kit:

400D + BG-E3
18-55mm kit lens
50mm 1.8
70-300mm IS

Now, i wanted a faster lens for my indoor shooting, and was pretty much decided on the Sigma 18-50 EX DC Macro, but what upset my plans was the release of the HSM version of this lens for the Nikon mount:confused:. My gut tells me that Sigma will definitely release a HSM version of this lens for the Canon mount too, and that I should wait for it...

So, in the meantime, I thought that i could use a better 'walkaround' lens than the kit lens, so i put up two candidates for the post:

1) Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II @ $225

2) Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS @ $375

Booth these lenses feature Ring USM and Full time Manual Focus and hence should be much faster focusing the the Kit lens. Both have Metal mount and general build quality is also said to be a lot better than the kit lens. However, both start at 28mm are not wide enough for the 1.6x crop of my 400D, but this does not bother me too much coz I don't really shoot that wide very often.

Which of these do u think would make more sense keeping in mind that eventually I'd be getting the faster 18-50 f/2.8 HSM whenever its released.

Which of these is optically better? Will IS on the 28-135 really help much in this relatively short focal length range?

Or should just I save my money and get the current 18-50 non HSM version now?:confused:

Pls suggest...

Viky

[TheObiJuan]

What about a larger range lens, like the 18-200s or 18-250?

[Viky]

What about a larger range lens, like the 18-200s or 18-250?

I'd stay away from them... reading over the internet I've learnt that they are too much of a compromise optically. moreover, I don't want that much range on my 'walkaround' lens anyway.

[coldrain]

I do not know if there will be a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM soon, if at all. The use of HSM motors by Sigma is hampered by patents and licensing stuff, that is why you did not see HSM in standard zoom range for instance, until now with teh D40 version.

So.. waiting may be quite uncertain.

[Viky]

I do not know if there will be a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM soon, if at all. The use of HSM motors by Sigma is hampered by patents and licensing stuff, that is why you did not see HSM in standard zoom range for instance, until now with teh D40 version.

So.. waiting may be quite uncertain.


Hmmmm! So, with this update, should i just get the current version or get one of the above two canons for now and then decide later about the f2.8 zoom?

[Rooz]

from past experience. i strongly recommend a wide angle lens for travelling. 18mm minimum. if i had a dollar for every time i cursed myself for not having a wider view i'd be preordering a D3 right now.

[JTL]

from past experience. i strongly recommend a wide angle lens for traveling. 18mm minimum. if i had a dollar for every time i cursed myself for not having a wider view i'd be preordering a D3 right now.I guess it depends on shooting styles...but I second this...especially if you're traveling...wide is just invaluable. I think some people immediately go for a tele zoom because it's fun and gives you a certain degree of "power" to be able to get close to objects. But for practical travel photography, it's been my experience that a wide angle lens will come in handy more of the time.

Unless you are willing to make the optical and AF compromise of an 18-200 or 18-250...the unfortunate bottom line is: one lens is not enough. Its a tough thing to swallow, but it's the way it is. 28mm is really 44mm on a 1.6 crop camera and that's hardly wide and barely qualifies for the "walk-around" designation. You could get the 17-85mm IS, but of course, you could never post here again because everyone (me excluded) would say how bad it is and make you feel like crap! :D

So, Viky, welcome to the fun world of lens decisions (and realizations) that your DSLR has wrought! :D

[DonSchap]

I did some build estimates on an 18-105mm f/2.8 (not a 28-105mm f/2.8 = 32 oz) and figured, based on what current technologies porovide, the lens would weigh about 35oz., if made with decent glass and a decent container to hold it.

That's a heavier than the usual "tote" for most walk-around lenses and as such, just precludes using it that way. Your average 17(18)-50mm f/2.8 weighs about 15-16oz and the telephoto end... cripes, that could be anything ... usually weighing in excess of 25 oz. (Combined weight ... in excess of 40 oz.)

The 18-200(250)mm weighs only 18 oz ... overs the wide range, but YEAH ... limited light at the high end. It's only 1/2 a stop above the 70-300mm and, personally, big deal. The convenience far out weighs (pardon the pun) the loss of light, in this case.

For the 'grab & go' of most shots, this is the lens to have on the front of your rig ... most of the time. You can always change to brighter lenses for the tough shots ... why not bring a 9-oz. 50mm f/1.8 or a 35mm f/2. They are small, relatively cheap ... and "pocketable" in a lens case/bag. Yeah, so they're fixed ... but, there's that convience.

Lots to consider ... but big, heavy lenses (>30 oz) are NOT WALK-AROUND. They are a drag.

[coldrain]

For me, walk around lenses are a bit of a mixed bag.
When I am in surroundings I know well, I use my 70-200 and my 12-24mm, and hardly my 18-50mm.

But when I am somewhere where everything is new to me, the 18-50mm range is a lot more useful.

I am not interested in one lens with a big range, more in lenses that offer what I think is important. The 17-85 from Canon, the 18-200 from Sigma and the 18-250 from Tamron just give too much distortion at wide angle, to much vignetting and in all just are too big of an optical compromise.

I would go for the two lens walk around... 18-50 + 70-300 IS you already have.

[droopy1592]

You could get the 17-85mm IS, but of course, you could never post here again because everyone (me excluded) would say how bad it is and make you feel like crap! :D

So, Viky, welcome to the fun world of lens decisions (and realizations) that your DSLR has wrought! :D

I'm a DSLR noob (started with S5) but I found that the Canon EF 28-105mm F/3.5-4.5 II USM was more acceptable than the 17-85mm... but sucks at the wide end... because, well 45mm ain't really wide. I just take a few steps back. It's the cheap option for a budget like mine.

[JTL]

I just take a few steps back.Just watch out for the edge of that cliffffffffffff..............splat! :D

I know...becuase I'm so stupid I actually stepped off of one walking backwards with a camera to my eye! I lived to tell the tale. My camera did not. :D

[droopy1592]

Just watch out for the edge of that cliffffffffffff..............splat! :D

I know...becuase I'm so stupid I actually stepped off of one walking backwards with a camera to my eye! I lived to tell the tale. My camera did not. :D

You should have seen me trying to take family get-together pictures during labor day. I was pressed in the corner of the living room with my head smashed into the... it's hard getting a close up wide shot with that lens, but I like it better than the 18-55mm kit lens.

I need to improve my knowledge/ability first before I give that lens a hard time.

[Viky]

Ok! Going by the numerous inputs, i gather that i WILL need a wider prespective in my 'vacation lens'. so, I should jest leave the canon 28-1x5's alone and go straight for the more 'pro' lens selection.

So, this again leaves me with two choice of setups:

Setup-1
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM $499
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO $419
Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM (already have).....total - $918
- big gap between 50mm & 70mm

Setup-2
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM $499
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO $429
Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM (already have).....total - $928
+ no real gaps in focal length anywhere

So, which would make more sense on the 400D.

[Gintaras]

Viky, you forgot #3: IDEAL but expensive SET for XTi
Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5
Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS
Canon EF 70-200/4.0 IS

???

[Viky]

Viky, you forgot #3: IDEAL but expensive SET for XTi
Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5
Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS
Canon EF 70-200/4.0 IS

???

Yes, ideal, but this is way over the amount that I'm willing to spend at this moment:(

[Gintaras]

Vik, then why hurry? Add them slowly and your budget might be Ok… it s also good to have time for experimenting and understanding your lens needs.

So take something rather standard and fast, say 17-55/2.8 IS… then after using that you will see if you want to go wider or not….
In case you feel going wide is your desire then pick Canon's 10-22 and see if you really will need 17-55 in future… and so on so forth.
It can also happen you may want have 17-55 Canon and 10-20 Sigma... or 12-24 Tokina, who knows? or you may want Sigma 18-50/2.8 plus Canon 10-22 combo...?

and it might happen also that after you get one of them you may say: hah...that s all I want, i need no other beast because this baby serves me perfectly.:rolleyes:

[JTL]

Well, as long as we're playing hypothetical, there's a whole other way to go as well...the landscape shooter's crop camera dream package...

Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS
Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=295&sort=7&cat=27&page=1)

[coldrain]

From your two options I would choose the one with the 18-50mm. As far as I can judge its optics are better than those of the 24-70, and the wider angle it offers will be handy.

[Rhys]

It's not "fast" but the 17-85 IS is very good. I've seen some crappy reviews of the lens which differ completely from my experience. In fact I wonder whether the guys that reviewed it were on drugs!

[DonSchap]

It's not "fast" but the 17-85 IS is very good. I've seen some crappy reviews of the lens which differ completely from my experience. In fact I wonder whether the guys that reviewed it were on drugs!

Well ... it's a pretty common opinion, Rhys.

Okay, without further evidence to the contrary, I give you that "drugs" may have been involved, but it would have had to have been on a massive and rather unprecedented scale, because ... along with the "drugs" ... these guys went and actually got supporting pictures of the issues they suffered.

Most people around here do not feel putting the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM on the Canon is the right solution. It seems overpriced for what it provides, compared to the quality you can acheive with a much lower-priced lens. It has dramatic distortion at the wide-end, which is (pardon the pun) unparalleled by other lenses of similar short focal length.

Other than you, I can't remember the last time someone ACTUALLY recommended that particular lens as a solution (Probably my fault .... but it has to be rare, because I look in here a lot.). It usually winds up replaced with the f/2.8 lenses ... and relegated to dust-central.

As a "kit"-offering, it may have seen its day ... but without being uh, 'tricked' into accepting as a quick "kit"-solution, to actually reach into your wallet and put real money (separate purchase) on it ... in preference to another lens of lower price and better quality ... that just seems to be a bit of a reach. Sorry. :o

[Rhys]

I happen to like the 17-85. I might spring for the 17-55 some day but at the moment I'm very happy with this. Now if Canon were to produce a 17-85 IS (II) at f2.8 constant then I might get excited. Having said that, since Nikon is now full frame my best guess is that crop cameras are a dead market now and so we won't see better non-full frame lenses any more.

[DonSchap]

I happen to like the 17-85. I might spring for the 17-55 some day but at the moment I'm very happy with this. Now if Canon were to produce a 17-85 IS (II) at f2.8 constant then I might get excited. Having said that, since Nikon is now full frame my best guess is that crop cameras are a dead market now and so we won't see better non-full frame lenses any more.


Well, considering there never had been an EF-S 17-85mm f/2.8 IS USM in the first place ... it would be a FIRST, and not a "II".

There has only been the rather lackluster EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ... no f/2.8

I cannot even imagine how warped the image might be at 17mm f/2.8 ... that would probably be almost spherical:

28539

[Vich]

... since Nikon is now full frame my best guess is that crop cameras are a dead market now and so we won't see better non-full frame lenses any more. IMHO; that's a long ways off.

The cropper seems to be a perfect consumer format that'll hold it's own for years - surely beyond the life cycle of lens manufacturing (time for sales to rise, peek, and wane enough to recoup design/mfg costs).

3 or 4 years from now - hopefully it's a different story.

17-85 with IS surely is an attractive range however and I can understand your affinity for it. An updated version (a lot like the new 18-55 consumer model) would be a welcome improvement.

[michaelb]

I happen to like the 17-85. I might spring for the 17-55 some day but at the moment I'm very happy with this. Now if Canon were to produce a 17-85 IS (II) at f2.8 constant then I might get excited. Having said that, since Nikon is now full frame my best guess is that crop cameras are a dead market now and so we won't see better non-full frame lenses any more.

The 17-85 IS tends to get a bad wrap because of:
1. supposedly "horrible" barrel distortion at the wide angle
2. CA
3. soft edges
4. slow - f/4-f/5.6

But I've heard many say its plenty sharp and a decent landscape lens, although the corners may lag behind.

I'd love IS b/c of using filters near dusk at f/8 = slow shutter speed and I often don't have my tripod.

Rhys - how have you found the 17-85 sharp for landscapes at the wide end? Have you found the distortion an issue?

If only my Sigma had IS.

Sorry for the thread hijack!! ;)

[coldrain]

You could add:

5. lack of contrast and colour

Making photos comparatively lackluster, expecially landscape shots where the blue-ish veil of the not so amazing optical elements/coatings do put a damper on the joy of seeing the photos.

That is my main gripe of this lens, besides the very bad distortion.
Too expensive for the optics you get.

[Viky]

Thanks to all the inputs from you guys, I've realized that this would be the better choice:

Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM $499
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO $419
Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM (already have)

This is what I'm gonna stick to.

Thanks a ton:):)

[Honest Gaza]

Canon EF-S 10-22mm (waiting to really test it)
Sigma 17-70mm (tested and passed)
Canon 70-300mm IS (tested and passed)


One of the Forum members has this exact setup and is very happy with it :p

So says HG :D

[michaelb]

Thanks to all the inputs from you guys, I've realized that this would be the better choice:

Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM $499
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO $419
Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM (already have)

This is what I'm gonna stick to.

Thanks a ton:):)


Sound like a great setup to me - enjoy!!

[Viky]

Canon EF-S 10-22mm (waiting to really test it)
Sigma 17-70mm (tested and passed)
Canon 70-300mm IS (tested and passed)


One of the Forum members has this exact setup and is very happy with it :p

So says HG :D

I read a lot about the Sigma 17-70 and liked it, also saw lots of photos made with it an and then liked it even more... its a great lens, nice optics, better range, smaller size and cheaper too! But, I still prefer the 18-50 mainly coz it gives me that extra stop of light at 50mm compared to the 17-70. This would be of great help in my indoor available light photography. And oh, its EX too, the poor man's 'L'.:p:p

Between the Canon 10-22 USM and the Sigma 10-20 HSM, my heart wants to go with the Canon, but my 'head' wants to save the $200 and then maybe spend that on something else... at the moment, its 60-40 in favour of the Sigma. The final decision however, would be made in shop after handling each of them:)

Anyways, thanks a ton for your inputs Gaza, I'll keep you updated.

[Scott6]

My GF has a Canon 17-85

hers is real sharp. Its a bit slow on the long end but it still works great. The IS works really good for her. Barrel distortion? Yea its there, but its no a shot killer. Some times it looks cool.

the only reason she upgraded it was to use the 24-105 f4L I gave her that I wasn't using (kit cobo ya know)

Its a good lens. I think the price is about $100 to high, if it were $399 it would be a top class every day standard shooter lens IMO.

[Scott6]

Between the Canon 10-22 USM and the Sigma 10-20 HSM, my heart wants to go with the Canon, but my 'head' wants to save the $200 and then maybe spend that on something else... at the moment, its 60-40 in favour of the Sigma. The final decision however, would be made in shop after handling each of them:)

Anyways, thanks a ton for your inputs Gaza, I'll keep you updated.

Buy the canon, keep the blood line clean!