As of now I think I have my mind made up.
The Sigma 18-125 will give me the versatility I need right now for more of the everyday shots. I have the 50mm 1.8 and am very pleased with its portrait capabilities. So the 18 - 125 will fill in very nicely where the 50mm combined with the foot zoom can't cut it. This route will get me up and running fairly well for the time being [I have many portrait -family/senior obligations coming up] and will give me enough range to allow for the longer savings period of a solid telephoto lense purchase.
Andrew the Sigma is a good lense and I assume you've read my take on it with the 350D/XT. Just remember not all copies are the same and to play around with the lense before taking portrait photos where the aperture might need to be wide open. I would might even highly recommend using manual focus to assure tack sharp results.
.
Canon EOS 30D | Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 | Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS| Canon 70-200mm f/4L | Canon Speedlite 430EX + Sto-Fen Omni Bounce | Manfrotto 3001BD & 680B/486RC2 | Hoya Super HMC Pro1 Digital Filters | Hitech ND & GND Filters | Bags > Kata R-103 + Lowepro Nova 5 AW
I don’t want to twist anybody’s arm into making suggestions but i believe ObiJuan had some good results with the canon 135 softfocus (Jamison too?) and Jamison55 had a list of suggestion for lenses as well.
Yes, the 135 f2.8SF is an excellent lens for a great price. On a 1.6CF camera, it acts like a 200mm telephoto with a fast aperture. I sold mine to ObiJuan when I bought an 80-200 f2.8L, and the 135 became redundant. I used the money to buy an 85 f1.8, and boy was that a good trade.
Lenses I recommend?
For zooms, I currently use a Sigma 18-50 f2.8, and Tamron 28-75 f2.8. The Tamron is a jewel among lenses. It appears to be the best lens in this range right now, competing on the same level as the $1300 Canon 24-70L (though some would argue that the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Macro is a close competitor as well). The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a darned good lens for the price...a little soft at 2.8, but sharp by f4 and contrasty throughout. I'm shooting a lot of weddings these days, and both of these lenses produce images that I am happy to give my clients - and I'm pretty picky about these things!
For primes, it is hard to find one that isn't superior to just about any consumer zoom lens out there. IMHO the Canon 85 f1.8 is the king of the portrait primes. I love this lens, sharp, contrasty, beautiful bokeh, fast focusing USM, low price tag...this is the one lens I will NEVER sell. You can build a really good kit with primes for about $500 (Canons 28 f2.8, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8). This is actually the most economical route to take if most of your shots will take place in low light situations, and you want to avoid using a flash. At the very least, everyone should have the 50 f1.8 from their respective camera manufacturer (all are prices at <$100). You definitely give up the convenience of zooms, however.
For cheap lenses, I own the Sigma 55-200 (actually the 2nd lens I bought after purchasing my DReb). I paid about $130 for it online. It is definitely a very decent lens - especially for the price. I tested out the Quantaray branded version at my local Ritz against a Canon 70-300, and Sigma 75-300, and the 55-200 was sharper and more contrasty. I suspect the fact that it was created and optimized for digital cameras has something to do with it. Don't use it much anymore because of the 80-200L, but several of the images in my portfolio came from that lens....
Nope - the 80-200 f2.8L (a.k.a. the "Magic Drainpipe"), now discontinued. It was the predecessor of the 70-200, and many folks claim it is sharper. Never used a 70-200, but the 80-200 is amazingly sharp throughout its range, with that special "pop" that the "L" lenses ar famous for. You can get one on the 2nd hand market for between $700 and $800...
This also shows clearly why a Digital Rebel XT and big lens combo can't be done without a tripod. Even a 24-70L would tip the scales on that tiny thing.
is that an XT? it has a black shutter button.. 20D ?? 10D whats the camera there Jamison?
I didn't mean that the camera in the picture was an XT (you can tell it's a 20D by the grip). But that just furthers my point. If a 20D looks like that, imagine an XT in its place.
Originally Posted by aparmley
