I know you've answered this a few times, but . . .

I'm looking for a lens to add to my bag. What do you suggest? I do weddings

and portraits and have a 70-200 2.8, a 50 1.4, and a 24-70 2.8. I barely use

the 24-70 because it's sigma and it sucks. Any suggestions?

 

Thanks :o)

Look at the 17-55mm. I don't know what brand you shoot but FWIW, the Canon version is a bit less expensive and has IS. Nikon, a bit heavier and more expensive. Both are f/2.8 and great quality.

It probably makes more sense to determine what you can't shoot with your current equipment, and go from there...

 

From an overall perspective, you seem to be lacking on the wide end.

 

More specifically you say the Sigma sucks - can you give more details as to why it sucks?

Hi Bruce - I shoot Canon. I'll definitely think about the 17-55 for sure.

 

Andre - I know the sigma comment was a little open ended. My 24-70 locks up on me all the time when I'm pointing the camera down or up. If I keep it straight ahead it's fine, but that's no fun. I can't rely on it for weddings at all, because you just never know if it's gonna lock up during "the kiss" or something. I've sent it back twice and they said I should just shoot straight on. Therefore, sigma sucks. I'll probably never buy another sigma lens.

 

Thanks for the help, both of you! Keep 'em coming. :o)

To be fair, Sigma does not suck and it is silly to say so. I have made plenty of money with sigma lenses in the past and still have a couple of oddball ones around now that I use from time to time. Not all Canon lenses are great and not all 3rd party lenses are awful. There are winners and losers in both groups.

 

That having been said, it does sound like your particular lens sucks.

rachel - well, do you shoot with a 1.0, 1.3 or 1.6 canon?

 

and what do you want to do that you can't do already? some photographers have 10 lenses, some photographers use one. not sure which one you are.

 

I would recommend you sell the 24-70 and buy the 24-70 L or the 17-55 if you have a 1.6 crop camera.

 

I would recommend that you have a macro lens as well.

 

the 85mm 1.8 is a great available light lens. I don't find the 50mm 1.4 useful on the 1.6 bodies - I prefer the 85mm 1.8 or 1.2.

 

you might want to consider something wider than 24...but again, I'm not sure what you want to do, so it's difficult to make recommendations.

Thanks Josh and Conrad,

 

I have a 20D and am one of those photographers that likes to have 2 steady, always on the body, lenses and then a couple of spares for fun stuff. I might sell the 24-70, but I don't think I'll get much out of it.

 

Thanks for all your help!!!

rachel - in that case, yes, the 24-70 sigma isn't great. the 24-70 L is much better, but the 17-55 is THE workhorse lens for a 1.6 body. 2.8, IS and good image quality. what else do you want? okay, build quality is only middle of the road.

 

on top of that, I would still recommend a longer prime and a macro to round it all out.

Rachel,

 

It sounds like you answered the question yourself . . . if you have problems with your 24-70, you need to replace that focal range. I shoot Nikon, but have some experience with Canon as well. The 17-55 is a workhorse as Conrad pointed out, but 55mm is too short for me. The 24-70L is a great lens and would be a sizable upgrade from your Sigma.

 

Having said all of that . . . my workhorse is a Sigma 18-125. If required, I could shoot an entire wedding with lens on the camera.

 

Ed

Thanks so much. This has been a HUGE help. I've decided to sell my 24-70 and will either replace it with the 24-70 or the 17-55.

 

 

:o)

17-55 is usm

 

most of the wide angle shots on my website use this lens if you want to see how it fits a particular style: involved.

On a 20D, the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8 IS is my suggestion.

 

The EF24 to 70F2.8L is not wide enough for most Wedding Styles.

 

 

Is your second body, a 20D also? if not, that might influence the answer.

 

WW

yes I carry two 20Ds

<<<yes I carry two 20Ds>>>

 

...and you make them sing...

 

nice photos and processing.

I'd also suggest the 17-55IS over the 24-70L on a 20D. You can easily crop a 55mm shot to 70mm equivalent without losing the ability to print an 8x12. Unless you also have a 10-22 or 12-24, I wouldn't consider a mid-range zoom that didn't start at 17mm or 18mm.

 

After that, I also agree that an 85/1.8 would make an excellent addition to your lineup for headshots.

I would replace the 24-70 Sigma with a Canon 24-70, then add a 12-24. I have the Tokina which is fine but would go for the Nikon 12-24 if money were not a consideration. (I think they are making a 14-24 2.8 now, and would take that over the 12-24, which is f/4). I don't know the Canon equivalent, but in tight quarters at a reception you need something wider than 24, especially with the crop factor.

Thanks, William! It's nice to see another photographer from Ohio here on the forum.

Get a 10-22! Forget the ordinary Canon 24-70, its CR**

 

 

:-)

I like the 35mm f/1.4L as it is very versatile. Groups, portraits, ready shots, flash or available light...

Hi RB :) Do you shoot availale light? Do you plan to move up to a full-frame dSLR some day? If so, the 24-70L might be a better bet for you in the long run, then you could possiby add the 16-35L if you want to go wider/faster and have the cash to spend. Personally, I use the 17-40L which is a darn sight cheaper than the 16-35 (it's got f4 max aperture) but is a very sharp lens. I use my 50/1.8 for low-light/no-flash situations, but as you can imagine, this can be limiting on an XTi if in a small room. I guess you could also bump up your ISO as a compromise :)

<p>I shy away from crop-sensor specific glass because it will be of no use to me when I start to shoot full-frame dSLR (as it is, I regularly shoot film SLR, so it doesn't help me there either! ;) so I'd suggest the 24-70L in lieu of the 17-55...