2nd opinion on my lens combination?

[SK22]

Hi,

I'll be purchasing a Canon 40d (without the lens kit) and just seeking advice/opinions on the purchase of the following three lenses as a good diverse set.

My intentions for the lenses will be:
- Shoot wide detailed landscapes
- Shoot in low light
- Zoom
- Travel convenient / general quick shooting (heading overseas later this year)

After some research I have settled on.....
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
- Sigma 10-20mm 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC
- Sigma 70-300mm 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO Macro

Do you believe this will equip me for most situations/strengths?

Am I neglecting anything/weaknesses to the selection?

Thanks.

[cwat212]

you are missing alot there. you will want something in the 18-50 range at least.

The kit lens with the 40D is the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens. I did a quick search and it is around $180 when included with the kit. Seems like a no brainer to get that lens with the kit.

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro is very nice but over $300
New Canon 18-55 IS is getting nice reviews. also under $200

[erichlund]

The 10-20 is an ultra-wide. How experienced are you with shooting wide angle? Ultra-wide can be difficult due to the distortions caused by misaligning the camera.

I tend to agree that a more moderate wide to normal lens would be good for starting out. However, I don't know what your budget is. Canon makes an excellent 17-55mm f2.8 IS, but is $1000 (+$50 for the hood, how cheap is that!!!!). You will find that 17mm is wide enough for lots of landscape work.

In fact, in many cases, it is better to stitch several photos together than to use an ultra wide. You will get less distortion and much higher resolution (and yes, I do own an ultra-wide).

[tim11]

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro is very nice but over $300

I totally agree and I'm very happy with mine.

How low is low light? For landscape you can buy a tripod with any lenses you buy. If shooting moving subjects indoors no flash you will need something like F/2.8 but they aren't cheap.

[SK22]

Thanks for the advice so far.

By way of budget, feel comfortable with investing up to $2,300 AUD, was going to purchase the camera from this seller, they also have a seperate non-ebay store online. http://search.ebay.com.au/_W0QQsassZdigital-rev-oz (It does not look like they sell the 40d + 28-135mm as a kit.) Likewise with the lenses, I was going to get them off ebay or check them out on a trip to Hong Kong to try save on postage.


How low is low light?

I want the ability to capture cityscapes at night (& day), fireworks, general non-landscape action night shots. Ie. heading to Japan - capture flashing street signs at night. I have an Ixus 80 which performs terribly at night and has little zoom, however will still bring this along


The 10-20 is an ultra-wide. How experienced are you with shooting wide angle?

I don't have experience with ultra-wide (but I am a quick learner), if ultra-wide is prone to distortion in the wrong hands then maybe this is better left for now.


If shooting moving subjects indoors no flash you will need something like F/2.8 but they aren't cheap.

Would the Canon 50mm f/1.8 not be sufficient?


Perhaps I don't need to purchase 3 lenses, but bearing in mind my objectives from the first post, and up to $800-900 total to spend on lenses what would you recommend?

1. Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro (for general use, landscape at night, landscape at day) Due to 40d crop factor though will this still be useful for landscape?
2. ? if needed
3. ? if needed

(?) Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (considered for action shots, night shots, non-tripod shots) or is this now unecessary due to the 18-50 sigma

(?) See if I can get the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens (for something with more Zoom)

[TheWengler]

I want the ability to capture cityscapes at night (& day), fireworks, general non-landscape action night shots. Ie. heading to Japan - capture flashing street signs at night. I have an Ixus 80 which performs terribly at night and has little zoom, however will still bring this along

1. Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro (for general use, landscape at night, landscape at day) Due to 40d crop factor though will this still be useful for landscape?
2. ? if needed
3. ? if needed

(?) Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (considered for action shots, night shots, non-tripod shots) or is this now unecessary due to the 18-50 sigma

(?) See if I can get the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens (for something with more Zoom)

For that first set of situations it sounds like you need a tripod not a fast lens. When you open up the lens you get a shallow depth of field. That's not really ideal for cityscapes/landscapes.

18mm is still wide enough for landscapes, but all situations are different. The 50mm f/1.4 is 2 stops faster than the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. It would certainly be better for low light. However, I think you should make sure that's the focal length you're going to want for these low light action shots.

I think I'd rather have the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 instead of the Sigma 10-20 if I were to get an ultrawide lens.

I believe Canon has a new budget stabilized telephoto lens. I don't know much about it, but it might be worth a look.

[tim11]

I agree with TheWengler.

50 F/1.8 and 50 F/2.8 are certainly FASTER for low light indoors, but if you are in a confined room then the 50 mm focal length will pose some problems.

18-50 (x1.6 crop factor) = 28.8-80 mm. 28 is still consider wide but it's your call if it's wide enough for you. I don't see why it can't be used for landscape?
There are a few version of Sigma 18-50 F/2.8. The latest one is macro HSM, and the one phasing out is macro (without HSM).

If you don't need constant F/2.8, there is also Sigma 17-70 F/2.8-4.5 to consider.

If you shoot night scenery you must have a tripod and you don't really need a fast lens.

[fionndruinne]

You really don't need a fast lens for fireworks - a fast shutter doesn't capture as much of the effect. In fact, you'll want to use base ISO and an aperture of f/8 or f/11. Ten or fifteen second exposures turn out great.

Take a look at the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5. It's said to be a very sharp lens, and is a great all-around range, from wide angle to the point where a telephoto zoom like the 70-300mm can take over.

[SK22]

So in summary.....

The two lenses as I understand;
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 (landscape, low light, walkaround/quick shoot)
Sigma 70-300mm 70-300 F4-5.6 (distance/range)

Should suit the 40d and serve me well for versatility in shooting the situations raised in my posts?

Thanks again.

[tim11]

One thing you should know about Sigma 17-70 F/2.8-4.5 is that F/2.8 is only at the widest and the aperture quickly closes in as you zoom in. People who own one, however, seem to praise it a lot.
I'm not a pixel peeper and I don't take photo professionally; so personally, I'd be happy with your 2 selections.

PS. Don't forget the tripod.

[fionndruinne]

I think those two lenses could work very well. As for low-light, you could save some bucks and get the 50mm f/1.8. They're cheaply built but optically great, and quite a savings over the f/1.4 version.