Building my equipment!

Hello everyone!

 

I have a Canon 350D (what is in US? Canon XT?) and I've been doing research on

what lenses I should go out and buy. First of all, if I had money, I wouldn't

been asking anything because I would simply go out and buy Canon L-series

lenses. That's not the case, so, here's what I've come up with:

 

I would start with a lens that would replace my kit lens, it would be:

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5DC Macro

 

the strong second runner up would be:

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD

 

Now, the reason I prefer the Sigma is because it has more tele and it is also

macro. In addition, from what I've read, the Sigma should be optically better.

I read somewhere that the lens becomes a bit loose. This worries me!

 

After I've bought a lens to replace my kit lens, my second lens on the list

would be:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8EX DG Macro HSM

 

From what I've read, this one is really a good!

 

Anyway, I would really like to hear opinions of what others think!

 

-Herman

I just got the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD yesterday - haven't had much of a chance to play with it though. I bought it as a wedding lens, because of the constant f2.8 aperture.

 

I too would like more range. I never owned a kit lens, and so was always using full frame cameras lenses - the zoom ranges are not suited to a crop sensor camera.

 

Back to your question - as for the lens - it comes down to what you like to shoot. If you are just looking for a 'better' all around lens, then I would suggest the Canon 17-85 IS. If this is too pricey - looks like your Sigma you mentioned would fit the bill.

 

Always ask yourself ' what are my current lenses NOT giving me' when you look at new lenses.

 

My answer was an all around lens for my 20D and a wider aperture, plus an upcoming wedding. Thus the Tamron 17-50 f2.8

Buying equipment, not "building" it

50mm F1.8 .. no kit bag should be without it, and it is very very afforadable!

In building up your equipment collection, your choices presumably depend on what you want to shoot. Choose the best available tool for the task.

<b>Andre!</b><br>

Is there a specific reason why you chose that Tamron lens? For me, it seems that the Sigma is offering more. I would like to hear your thoughts!

<br><br>

 

<b>Ronaldo!</b><br>

=)

<br><br>

 

<b>dip gohil!</b><br>

I agree! I've been actually looking at the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM. It becomes 48mm with an APS-C DSLR. It will be difficult to choose between those two!

<br><br>

 

<b>J. W. Wall!</b><br>

Well, at first I was going to answer landscapes but then I realized that actually pretty much everything. Probably action/sport photography won't be so common subject for me. Otherwise everything from macro to landscapes is my thing!

I also went for the tamron and never regretted it. It has great corner to corner sharpness and constant f2.8, plus I handled both in store and the tamron felt more comfortable.

Ronaldo R - How can you be sure he is buying them?.

 

Maybe he is working in exchange for them or aquiring them in the way of gifts.

 

-----------------------------

 

I would go with Tamron 17-50. It gets slighly better reviews than the Sigma 17-70 plus it is a constant f/2.8

 

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is an excellent choice.

>>> First of all, if I had money, I wouldn't been asking anything because I would simply go out and buy Canon L-series lenses. <<<

 

 

I assume that this is a bit of a throw away line: but it is nonetheless, illogical, I mention this only because of a perceived slightly illogical process or perhaps unthought of questions; in the following thinking.

 

 

>>> I would start with a lens that would replace my kit lens, it would be: Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5DC Macro <<<

 

 

Have you clearly delineated what this Sigma lens is going to achieve that the kit lens can not, and applied those increased uses to what you requirements are.

 

 

Let me expand: I have not used the Sigma lens, but from the description it is a variable focus zoom lens, with `Macro` capacity.

 

 

We can assume that around 40 to 50 mm it will be F4.5, so comparing to the kit lens you are replacing, what benefits will you get? A faster 17mm to 40mm and a `macro` capacity, and PERHAPS some improved IQ at F3.5 to F5.6 would be a reasonable answer.

 

 

I believe you should investigate the quality of the `Macro` capacity of the Sigma lens.

 

 

Considering in the reply post you mention your interest is mainly landscapes and macro, and other subjects, but sport is a low priority, and assuming that mostly you will be shooting landscapes at 17mm through to 50mm and at F8 to F11, in daylight, then to address these criteria why are you replacing the kit lens?

 

 

Why not, as a first step, just add the EF 100mmF2.8 Macro to your kit?

 

 

You will then have in your kit: a good landscape lens; a `dedicated` macro lens; a short (reasonably fast) telephoto (equiv FoV 160mm) which is a good portrait lens with reasonable bokeh.

 

 

If you look at the 100mm Macro and what it can achieve, then you might be reconsidering the outlay on a 70 to 200mm zoom.

 

 

I offer this as some food for thought in a tangential move: I guess what I am attempting to encourage is, as mentioned first up you need to ask more deeply: `what are my current lenses NOT giving me` and then be really open minded about adapting all lenses which are available to best address those shortcomings.

 

 

And I perceive there is a little misunderstanding on your behalf regarding the capacity of and uses for the 18 to 55 mm `kit lens` you want to replace.

 

 

WW

<b>Don W!</b><br>

I think you did the right thing! I read a few reviews from www.photozone.de. The tests shows that the Tamron is better! Naturally, the downside is that Tamron has less tele and no macro capability.

<br><br>

<b>William W!</b><br>

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! You brought up good points!

<br><br>

<i>>>>Have you clearly delineated what this Sigma lens is going to achieve that the kit lens can not, and applied those increased uses to what you requirements are.<<<</i><br>

My thought was to replace my kit lens with one that is optically better. I've used the kit lens quite a lot and I've noticed it doesn't produce the sharpest pictures. The tests from reviews support this fact. I know people don't talk highly of it but I've managed with what I've had. Most of my pictures are taken with the kit lens. I compared the reviews of the kit lens over the Tamron and there were a big difference in sharpness. However, you have a point if I should replace the kit lens as the first thing!

<br><br>

<i>>>>Why not, as a first step, just add the EF 100mmF2.8 Macro to your kit?<<<</i><br>

Good idea! I've actually had similar ideas, even though, not with a specific lens in my mind. I have used Sigma 70mm Macro which has been quite nice. The Canon 100mm Macro would also be a very exciting choice. It has got very good reviews. I suppose the reason why I didn't put this on the top of my list is because a prime lens is somewhat limiting. However, I must say, you have a very valid point and I will probably rethink about this.

<br><br>

<i>>>>If you look at the 100mm Macro and what it can achieve, then you might be reconsidering the outlay on a 70 to 200mm zoom.<<<</i><br>

Interesting point. However, I can't stop thinking that zoom lens offer more options than a prime lens. Even though, a prime lens usually offers better pictures.

<br><br>

<i>>>>I offer this as some food for thought in a tangential move: ...<<<</i><br>

I really liked that you did! It made me rethink and re-evaluate my priority list.

<br><br>

<i>>>>And I perceive there is a little misunderstanding on your behalf regarding the capacity of and uses for the 18 to 55 mm `kit lens` you want to replace.<<<</i><br>

I might have started to look down on my kit lens. It has served me well, I've taken most of my pictures with it. However, there are lenses out there that outperform the kit lens. However, I need to rethink if I should replace my kit lens as the first thing. For example, getting the Canon EF 100mm sounds very good as well. =)

More often than not, the OP does not respond to ideas, especially when there are implied questions.

 

I, and I assume others too, appreciate the feedback; thank you.

 

Good luck with your choices.

 

WW

Herman - I chose the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 over the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (I did not consider the Sigma 17-70) because it got better reviews, mainly the Sigma comments talked about the autofocus being less reliable.