View Full Version : Question about a wide angle + Zoom lens for Canon 40D...
After a long research I have decided what camera and what single walk around lens to get:
Canon 40D + Canon 17-55 f2,8 IS USM.
I will not buy any more lenses just now, Im planning to get to know the camera (previously I had a Panasonic FZ20) and then buy more lenses. Im fairly sure that the EFS 10-22 would be a good choice for wide angle covereage on a x1.6 body. Can You guys suggest a zoom lens that would be good as an addition to those 2 lenses ?
Im not a professional, obviously Im not planning to spend $10K on some high end lens but I want some advise on what would be a good wrap up for the 10-22 / 17-55.
24Peter
02-02-2008, 07:29 AM
If you're just starting out, you may want to save some money and consider the Canon kit lenses - 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS (think that's it). You can also then go with the Canon 10-22 for wide stuff. Alternatively, I would suggest the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS for your zoom.
Ive made up my mind as to the 17-55, spent too much time researching to change it now plus realy, I've taken too many underexposed, unsharp and grainy photos with the Panny, had enough.
I take most of my photos in poor lihting so the combination of 40D's high ISO + f2,8 with IS seems perfect for me. I want a bright lens, period.
I think Im making a good choice here and money is not such an issue for me.
Im just a little lost in the zoooms area, didnt reasearch that at all.
24Peter
02-02-2008, 07:47 AM
Ive made up my mind as to the 17-55, spent too much time researching to change it now plus realy, I've taken too many underexposed, unsharp and grainy photos with the Panny, had enough.
I take most of my photos in poor lihting so the combination of 40D's high ISO + f2,8 with IS seems perfect for me. I want a bright lens, period.
I think Im making a good choice here and money is not such an issue for me.
Im just a little lost in the zoooms area, didnt reasearch that at all.
Hmmm, I shot with an FZ20 before going to Canon DSLR and never had grainy, underexposed, unsharp pics with it. In fact, some of my favorite pics were taken with that camera.
I agree the 17-55 2.8 IS is a very nice lens. But it's not a guarantee of better pics. And you can buy 5 kit lenses for the price of one 17-55 IS. If you're set on that lens, great. Then I would repeat my tele-zoom suggestion of 70-300 F4-5.6 IS. Does that help?
cdifoto
02-02-2008, 08:00 AM
The EF-S 17-55mm isn't any brighter than the lens on the FZ20. Both are f/2.8. You don't even gain IS because the Panasonic also has that. Cleaner high ISO, sure, but underexposed photos are the user's fault. Much graininess comes from that.
My underexposed photos came from using low ISO in low light on the FZ20 - anything above ISO 200 was completely unusable for me.
Grainyness came from using high ISO so its like a vicious cirlce :)
Im not a pro like You guys but I do know that I want...the 40D + 17-55, why dont You guys just let me have it, lol :p
Thanks for the tip on the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS, I'll look into it.
I love to take photos at night, in clubs, generaly in low light conditions. The FZ20 was a great camera thats why I stood with it for over 3 years but with its frustrating ISO even the great f2,8 lens and IS wouldnt help - those of You who used it probably know what Im talking about.
Thanks for the tips :)
TheWengler
02-02-2008, 10:31 AM
The 17-55 is a fine lens but it's kind of high end for someone who's brand new to DSLR's. There's a chance you might change your mind as to what you really need and be out $900. That's why people don't usually start with the top of the line. If you're shooting in clubs then maybe f/2.8 would end up being too slow for you then you'd need a faster prime. For low light large depth of field shots you'd need a flash. For landscapes in low light you'd need a tripod.
Also all the lenses you mentioned are zoom lenses. Zoom refers to the ability to change focal lengths. Something with more reach is called a telephoto lens. What do you need this lens for? What kind of lighting will you be using it in? Do you want it to have IS? There are a few to choose from.
The 17-55 is a fine lens but it's kind of high end for someone who's brand new to DSLR's. There's a chance you might change your mind as to what you really need and be out $900. That's why people don't usually start with the top of the line. If you're shooting in clubs then maybe f/2.8 would end up being too slow for you then you'd need a faster prime. For low light large depth of field shots you'd need a flash. For landscapes in low light you'd need a tripod.
Also all the lenses you mentioned are zoom lenses. Zoom refers to the ability to change focal lengths. Something with more reach is called a telephoto lens. What do you need this lens for? What kind of lighting will you be using it in? Do you want it to have IS? There are a few to choose from.
I will be thinking about buying a prime some time in the future for sure...50mm 1.4 or something similar. I do not see the point in getting the 18-55 or the 17-85 because the are both slow (3.5-5.6 / 4.5-5.6) I realize that Im getting gear which I will not be able to fully utilize right from the start - thats actualy why Im getting it. I want to learn, I want to take trips to places and spend time shooting and I want to have a good camera for that, otherwise I might as well buy the new Lumix and point & shoot like I did for years and realy, REALY I do not want that. I will need the zoom mainly for good light conditions so IS is not a must but its nice to have, I think anyone would agree.
I travel a lot...the zoom will be mostly used for sunny day shooting in the country - birds & animals.
I've been a dj for 12 years, now its more of a hobby, I do still go around clubs though and I spend lots of time in places with bad light...hense I prolly will need a prime.
I give trainings on plotters & laser printers (not Canon though) - I have access to quality large format printers so I want my photos to be finaly SHARP (read 17-55)
Im actualy in Kenya for a week right now, I sold my Panny and Im left with a "camera" in my Nokia E50 and Im realy frustrated so please excuse if Im a bit grouchy here.
Nickcanada
02-02-2008, 12:00 PM
Just a suggestion... how about a kit lens (18-55mm IS), Sigma 30mm 1.4 and a flash like the 430 EX or the 580 ex?
Just a suggestion... how about a kit lens (18-55mm IS), Sigma 30mm 1.4 and a flash like the 430 EX or the 580 ex?
The flash and a fast prime will be on my list in the near future for sure.
Can You tell me any reason I should not get the 17-55 besides me being a lamer and not deserving it ? Thats what Im reading in between the lines from You guys :p
Edit :
The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is known for its focusing problems...lots of people say to stay away. Is it working ok for You ?
Nickcanada
02-02-2008, 01:50 PM
No no. DSLRs are expensive and draining on the pocket book. When you get the camera you are going to want to get bags and extra memory and upgrade your computer, and cleaning stuff and tripods. Then you will realize that you probably should could have just started with a cheaper lens kit to start with so you could afford all the other stuff without stretching your budget.
If you are shooting low light indoors your best bet will be to use a flash. If you can't use a flash (club shots) you are going to want a prime because IS can't stop subject movement and you will end up with motion blur. You are going to want to have that F1.4 with available light shooting. IS does help, but only if you are shooting static subjects.
As far as sharpness goes, the new kit lens looks to be plenty sharp. And the Sigma 30mm 1.4 gets great reviews.
We are only advising caution because we have all been there before and we are giving you advice based on our past experiences. The 17-55mm 2.8 Is is a killer lens no doubt but personally I think there are more effective ways for you to spend that money initially, like on a flash, a nice bag, cleaning supplies, a tripod, or whatever else you might need.
cdifoto
02-02-2008, 02:10 PM
The flash and a fast prime will be on my list in the near future for sure.
Can You tell me any reason I should not get the 17-55 besides me being a lamer and not deserving it ? Thats what Im reading in between the lines from You guys :p
Nah it's kinda like having 10 dollars and wanting a 10 dollar wallet. We're trying to give you 5 dollar wallet options so you actually have some cash left to put in it... ie a good balance. The dSLR game isn't a cheap one to play and if you end up thinking it sucks or certain gear is overkill, you have to take a loss on resale. Starting slow usually makes more sense.
Edit :
The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is known for its focusing problems...lots of people say to stay away. Is it working ok for You ?
My Sigma 30mm is fine. Successfully tracked a 64 km/h car with it at 3FPS on the 10D (an older, not-so-fast AF body).
Who said I got 10 dollars? :p
Edit :
Guys...I know exactly what Im getting into. Im prepared to spend around $5k in the next few months; $2.5k initialy on the body + a startup lens + $2.5k later on on a prime + some wide angle + flash. Bags, memory (I have a good tripod), etc, Im prepared to spend a few houndred on that too.
You know, the dollar is getting week by the minute and our economy here is doing quite well as opposed to some other economies out there ;)
But seriously...thanks for the tip on the Sigma 30/1.4
I red some bad things about it and left the subject some time ago. Now Im gonna have to look into it further.
24Peter
02-02-2008, 05:44 PM
But seriously...thanks for the tip on the Sigma 30/1.4
I red some bad things about it and left the subject some time ago. Now Im gonna have to look into it further.
Some people have had pretty good results with the Sigma 30 1.4 and I trust Don's assessment. Mine had inconsistent focusing issues on my 40D - so I returned it. I now have the Canon 28 1.8 instead. There's a lot to like about the Sigma. When it focuses, it is very sharp and contrasty even wide open. The Canon isn't as nice, but in the end I felt it was a better lens for me - esp. b/c my next camera will be full frame. ;)
TheWengler
02-02-2008, 06:42 PM
Ok, telephoto options...I'm going to stick to the IS ones so you won't have to obey that annoying SS=1/f rule. All of these are good lenses, but I haven't used any of them. So the suggestions are based on things I've read.
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS - $500 - Smallest, lightest, probably the best for travel. I think it has a rotating front element too.
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS - $1000 - This one is sharp throughout the range. You can use this one with a 1.4x TC
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS - $1650 - This one might not be tack sharp at the long end wide open. I think you could use this one with the 2x TC in addition to the 1.4x
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS - $1100 - Not great at 400mm, slow max aperture
The prices might be off by a little. I went from memory. If you need something faster than f/2.8 you'll need to get a prime.
24Peter
02-02-2008, 09:47 PM
Ok, telephoto options...I'm going to stick to the IS ones so you won't have to obey that annoying SS=1/f rule. All of these are good lenses, but I haven't used any of them. So the suggestions are based on things I've read.
Canon 70-300mm IS - $500 - Smallest, lightest, probably the best for travel. I think it has a rotating front element too.
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS - $1000 - This one is sharp throughout the range. You can use this one with a 1.4x TC
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS - $1650 - This one might not be tack sharp at the long end wide open. I think you could use this one with the 2x TC in addition to the 1.4x
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS - $1100 - Not great at 400mm, slow max aperture
The prices might be off by a little. I went from memory. If you need something faster than f/2.8 you'll need to get a prime.
Lukas - for a Pentax dude, you seem to know an awful lot about Canon gear. Am I missing something? ;)
TheWengler
02-02-2008, 10:11 PM
Lukas - for a Pentax dude, you seem to know an awful lot about Canon gear. Am I missing something? ;)
Well, since Pentax doesn't have any good telephoto lenses I have to ogle another brand. :D
Ok, telephoto options...I'm going to stick to the IS ones so you won't have to obey that annoying SS=1/f rule. All of these are good lenses, but I haven't used any of them. So the suggestions are based on things I've read.
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS - $500 - Smallest, lightest, probably the best for travel. I think it has a rotating front element too.
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS - $1000 - This one is sharp throughout the range. You can use this one with a 1.4x TC
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS - $1650 - This one might not be tack sharp at the long end wide open. I think you could use this one with the 2x TC in addition to the 1.4x
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS - $1100 - Not great at 400mm, slow max aperture
The prices might be off by a little. I went from memory. If you need something faster than f/2.8 you'll need to get a prime.
Thank You Lukas, this was very usefull.
njoy_az
02-03-2008, 05:14 AM
No no. DSLRs are expensive and draining on the pocket book. When you get the camera you are going to want to get bags and extra memory and upgrade your computer, and cleaning stuff and tripods. Then you will realize that you probably should could have just started with a cheaper lens kit to start with so you could afford all the other stuff without stretching your budget.
...
I have to completely agree with Nick's statements (but if you have rather deep pockets it may not apply to you). I went that 17-55 route and I will not be able to afford a mayor purchase like a 10-22, 70-200 f4L or a 580 exII for quite some time. I could have easily fit in a 18-55IS, 430ex and either a 40D or a 400D plus prime/telezoom in that same budget.
Don't get me wrong though, I not only love my setup, but it also perfectly fits my needs as I do mostly landscapes etc (otherwise I would have got myself another setup) :) .
TheWrengler: What is that "annoying SS=1/f rule" rule about? :confused:
D Thompson
02-03-2008, 06:19 AM
What is that "annoying SS=1/f rule" rule about? :confused:
It's a guide for the slowest handheld (without IS) shutter speed. If you're using a focal length of 200mm then 1/200th is a guide to handholding. Shooting slower than 1/200th "may" introduce blur due to camera shake. Some people are more steady and some are less, but it will generally be close.
Well I've made up my mind.
Initialy I'll be getting the 40D + 17-55 + 2x4GB + some nice Bag + maybe if I'll manage, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 for my poor light photography but I have to try it out first cause realy, Ive seen many complains about focusing problems on this lens. Maybe some units are crappy and some are good ?
Then after a while I'll get the 10-22 + 430ex.
I'll wait and see how I'll be doing without the telephoto, if I'll be totaly lost without it which I doubt, I'll get the 70-200 f/4 L.
Thanks for the tips all, helped me to make up my mind as for my telephoto needs, I appreciate it.
sneakerpimp
02-03-2008, 10:48 AM
good choices. i'm getting a similar setup:
XSi body – have to wait until april though :(
70-200 f2.8L IS – ordered last night
EF-S 10-22 – will order before rebate expires
50 f1.4 – for low light and portraits, will order after other stuff paid for
Speedlite 430EX – will order when i need it
Yeah, I was thinking about getting the 450D too but I figured that Im gonna be better off buying the 40D for a slightly lower price sometime after its intruduction then buying the ultra-new 450D right at its intruduction. This way Im thinking Im going to end up with a better camera for aproximately the same price :)
njoy_az
02-03-2008, 11:28 AM
Well I've made up my mind.
Initialy I'll be getting the 40D + 17-55 + 2x4GB + some nice Bag + maybe if I'll manage, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 for my poor light photography but I have to try it out first cause realy, Ive seen many complains about focusing problems on this lens.
...
Congrats, I hope you will enjoy your combo as much as I do mine. :)
(There is a downside to owning good equipment btw: It is much harder to blame the camera for bad images...) :D
D Thompson: Thanks for the explanation. :)
(There is a downside to owning good equipment btw: It is much harder to blame the camera for bad images...) :D
Yep, I know...and Im scared allready, realy :D
Maybe I just wont show any pix to anyone untill I get the hang of the new gear...that might be a long time though :p
michaelb
02-04-2008, 09:17 AM
Ok, telephoto options....
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS - $1000 - This one is sharp throughout the range. You can use this one with a 1.4x TC....
This is the one I would get if you want IS.
- much smaller/lighter than the f/2.8 version. Same size as the non-IS version.
- very sharp, ultrafast USM.
- only drawback is the f/4 - if you plan on using to to shoot people indoors you will want at least f/2.8 - your probably better off with a prime for this purpose anyways though. But for outdoors the f/4 IS would be perfect, IMO. As the light starts to fade the IS will come in very handy for stationary objects (landscapes, etc).
24Peter
02-04-2008, 09:32 AM
Well it sounds like koti has made up his/her mind but for anyone else out there considering the aforementioned lenses, I'm going to go against the grain and vote for the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS for someone who's new to (D)SLR's. It's much more compact, lightweight and cheaper than the 70-200 F4 L IS, and it has a longer zoom range and excellent image quality too.
If you're an experienced photographer looking for a nice tele-zoom for portraits or other uses, then the 70-200 "L" options from Canon are an obvious choice. If you have limited experience or just want a good quality lens for a reasonable price, I think you're better served by the 70-300 IS USM.
Guys, just one more question just so I knwo if I understand this corretly.
Below is my dream setup that I will eventualy be getting (initialy 40d + 17-55)
Now is my understanding of this correct ?
Canon 40D = x1.6 to a full size sensor.
Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 x 1.6 = 16mm-35,2mm
Sigma 30 f/1.4 x 1.6 = 48mm
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS x 1,6 = 27,2mm-88mm
Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS x 1,6 = 112mm-480mm
Squirt
02-06-2008, 03:17 AM
Your understanding is correct. I've held off on answering this thread to wait until it shook out. I'm not a proponent of lenses other than the prime manufacturer, I'll spend the extra bucks to buy what Canon makes, rather than purchase a generic with a Canon mount hung on it but that's just me. I will question your choice of tele lens, save your pennies and get "L" glass. Canon "L" glass has few if any rivals, it's the best. The recommendation about the 70-200 mm in either F/2.8 or F/4 is valid, it's a great lens. I wish I would have purchased it instead of what I have. My 75-300 IS is a good lens, with great output, but it's not up to "L" quality. Later this summer it will go on the block and be replaced with a 100-400 mm "L", because I have coverage in the 28- 135 mm that came with my 40D. Camera bodies come and go but glass lasts forever.
Honest Gaza
02-06-2008, 04:04 AM
Your understanding is correct. I've held off on answering this thread to wait until it shook out. I'm not a proponent of lenses other than the prime manufacturer, I'll spend the extra bucks to buy what Canon makes, rather than purchase a generic with a Canon mount hung on it but that's just me. I will question your choice of tele lens, save your pennies and get "L" glass. Canon "L" glass has few if any rivals, it's the best. The recommendation about the 70-200 mm in either F/2.8 or F/4 is valid, it's a great lens. I wish I would have purchased it instead of what I have. My 75-300 IS is a good lens, with great output, but it's not up to "L" quality. Later this summer it will go on the block and be replaced with a 100-400 mm "L", because I have coverage in the 28- 135 mm that came with my 40D. Camera bodies come and go but glass lasts forever.
You've confused me here. You say that the 70-300mm is not up to "L" quality so it will be replaced with a 100-400mm "L".
This will then go well with your 28-135mm....which to my understanding is NOT an "L" lens :confused:
Perhaps a contradiction here ;)
michaelb
02-06-2008, 05:01 AM
You've confused me here. You say that the 70-300mm is not up to "L" quality so it will be replaced with a 100-400mm "L".
This will then go well with your 28-135mm....which to my understanding is NOT an "L" lens :confused:
Perhaps a contradiction here ;)
Koti,
Keep in mind that the 100-400 is a huge lens and many not be one that you will want to carry around all the time. I would favor the 70-200 f/4 IS with a TC if you want an "L" lens. with IS. Also, many consider the 70-300 IS to have L optics, if not L build qulaity and its a fairly compact lens. I would only get the 100-400 if you really need that kind of reach.
Check this out....
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/73v72f4is
Koti,
Keep in mind that the 100-400 is a huge lens and many not be one that you will want to carry around all the time. I would favor the 70-200 f/4 IS with a TC if you want an "L" lens. with IS. Also, many consider the 70-300 IS to have L optics, if not L build qulaity and its a fairly compact lens. I would only get the 100-400 if you really need that kind of reach.
Check this out....
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/73v72f4is
Theres some confusion here.
I never considered the 100-400. First I wrote that Im gonna get the 70-200 f/4 L but only if I find that I absolutely cant live without it, then I wrote that I will get the 70-300 f/4-5.6 instead.
Anyways...
I will not be getting any telezoom lens for now. First I will buy the 40D body + 17-55 + 10-22 + some fast prime. Then after I get to know this gear I will decide what tele to get.
Thanks for the link though michaelb...I'll look it up later tonight :)
michaelb
02-06-2008, 03:33 PM
Theres some confusion here.
I never considered the 100-400. First I wrote that Im gonna get the 70-200 f/4 L but only if I find that I absolutely cant live without it, then I wrote that I will get the 70-300 f/4-5.6 instead.
Anyways...
I will not be getting any telezoom lens for now. First I will buy the 40D body + 17-55 + 10-22 + some fast prime. Then after I get to know this gear I will decide what tele to get.
Thanks for the link though michaelb...I'll look it up later tonight :)
Sorry about that Koti; it was Squirt who wrote that and I thought it was you. :confused:
I think the 40D + 17-55 + 10-22 + some fast prime is a great plan, as you can see from my sig. ;)
Honest Gaza
02-06-2008, 09:02 PM
Sorry about that Koti; it was Squirt who wrote that and I thought it was you. :confused:
I think the 40D + 17-55 + 10-22 + some fast prime is a great plan, as you can see from my sig. ;)
Yes Michael....my response (which you quoted) was to a post from Squirt :)
Squirt
02-07-2008, 03:35 AM
Please note my lens is a 75 to 300 not a 70 to 300. The 70 to 300 is a smaller lens than mine. I have no complaints with my lens, like I said it's a GOOD lens just not a great one. Knowing what I know now, I would purchase "L" glass instead of either of the two lenses discussed and this was point I was making. I want the 100 to 400 "L" because I do quite a bit of wildlife and I want something that will reach out and touch someone at a distance. If I didn't need the magnification I'd be all over a 70 to 200 F/2.8 IS. The 28-135 is the kit lens that came with my 40D, normally it's not a lens that I would look at because I have excellent coverage with the other lenses I own. When I got the opportunity to play with the lens, I've really seen that it's a good carrying around lens and with the IS I've hand held it down to 1/6 of a second and had acceptable results. I purchased my 40D from CompUSA during their going out of business clearance with lens for less than I can purchase it online. I hadn't planned to purchase but $1300 out the door was something I couldn't pass up.
michaelb
02-07-2008, 06:09 AM
Ahhhh, thanks for clearing that up Squirt. Sounds like you got a good deal on the 40D/28-135 combo!
This is my thread damnit.
Its mine, mine, mine !
:p
ok, I feel better now, please tell me this...
When talking a fast prime, what are my other choices for 40D besides :
- Sigma 30mm f1.4
- Canon EF 24mm f1.4L USM (this one is about $1400 so I wont be getting it for sure)
The Canon EF 35mm f1.4L USM is prolly not going to be wide enough and is freaking expensive too so its out of the question too.
So what are my other choices here besides the Sigma ?
Nickcanada
02-07-2008, 06:37 AM
There is a Canon 28mm 1.8 and a Canon 35mm 2.0. I think it's a toss up between the Sigma and the Canon 28mm 1.8. Peter24 had both and he went with the Canon 28mm 1.8 in the end.
I went with the 35mm 1.4 but it's my main lens and stays on my camera most of the time.
Nickcanada
02-07-2008, 06:39 AM
There is a Canon 28mm 1.8 and a Canon 35mm 2.0. I think it's a toss up between the Sigma and the Canon 28mm 1.8. Peter24 had both and he went with the Canon 28mm 1.8 in the end.
I went with the 35mm 1.4 but it's my main lens and stays on my camera most of the time.
edit: I was assuming you were looking for a prime in the 30mm range but if you want wider there is a Sigma 20mm 1.8 and longer you can get into the 85mm 1.8 .
Im looking for a very fast lens that will give me aproximately 50mm view angle on my x1.6 crop 40D. The Sigma looks like something Id exactly need but Im just weighing my choices here...some reviews say realy bad things about that Sigma 30 f/1.4
Nickcanada
02-07-2008, 07:31 AM
Well the Canon gets decent reviews. It's not as fast as the Sigma but it has USM and seems to perform well. Don't put too much faith in online reviews and forums.
fractalgfx
02-08-2008, 07:55 AM
I bought the 17-55 as my first lens for my dSLR lens and couldn't have been happier with it. It doesn't make me a better photographer but it does let me take shots I wouldn't dream about without a prime lens.
I bought the 17-55 as my first lens for my dSLR lens and couldn't have been happier with it. It doesn't make me a better photographer but it does let me take shots I wouldn't dream about without a prime lens.
17-55 is not a prime lens.
"Prime" lenses are the ones that have a fixed focal lenght, for example 30 mm, 50 mm or 200 mm, etc.
So...a "Prime" is not always that prime...it can suck too :)
michaelb
02-08-2008, 07:03 PM
Im looking for a very fast lens that will give me aproximately 50mm view angle on my x1.6 crop 40D. The Sigma looks like something Id exactly need but Im just weighing my choices here...some reviews say realy bad things about that Sigma 30 f/1.4
From what I have read their may be a QC issue with this lens in terms of the AF. I usually buy my lenses used on FM or POTN, but if I bought the Sigma 30 I think I would buy it new from somewhere I could try it for a few days and returrn it if I had a problem, like Amazon or B&H.
Check out the comparison tests between the Sigma and several Canon primes, including the 28 f/1.8, 35 f/2 and the 35L.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
Here is the Sigma vs the 35L....the Sigma looks amazing for the money....
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/30v35_2nd
fractalgfx
02-10-2008, 08:14 PM
17-55 is not a prime lens.
"Prime" lenses are the ones that have a fixed focal lenght, for example 30 mm, 50 mm or 200 mm, etc.
So...a "Prime" is not always that prime...it can suck too :)
In your original post you asked for opinions on the 17-55. If you wanted my opinion on prime lenses you should have asked about prime lenses.
A prime is always a prime as long as its only divisors are 1 and itself.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.