Replacing the Sigma 18-125 with a ____?

Hey,

 

I know there are many "what lens should I buy questions". I've searched the

forums, and found lots of information. So, here is what I've found, and my

situation. The equipment I have Canon Rebel XT, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 28-105

3.5-4.5 USM II (the nice one), Tamron 75-300, and Sigma 18-125mm. (and 430EX flash).

 

I have been using the Sigma 18-125 for a general-purpose lens. Recently, I

dropped it, actually twice. The first time, it fell out of my pocket, bounced

off a rock and fell in the sand. I had the hood on backwards, so, the hood took

most the impact. It worked okay. Then the second time, it fell 3-4 feet onto a

concrete floor, straight down onto the lens. The filter broke into tiny pieces,

and the lens cap was stuck in the filter. The glass on the lens is fine, and

actually the lens works fine, most of the time. Occasionally, the lens will

stop-down for no reason, the view-finder becomes dim/dark. Almost like the DOF

Preview button is being pressed, but it is not. Luckily, both times the lens was

not on the camera. (The camera is fine).

 

So, I can possibly send the Sigma in for repair, and/or buy a new lens. I know

the Sigma isn't a high quality lens, but I like the pictures it takes for the

most part. My only issue with the lens is the 3.5-5.6 aperture. I sometimes wish

it was more like f/2.8. Though, honestly, I like the zoom range of the lens. It

is ideal for travel, and general-purpose shots.

Here are the pictures I've taken with the Sigma:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=501312

 

From searching the forums, here is what I am considering to replace the Sigma

18-125.

 

1)Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (or Sigma 18-50 f2.8, though I hear the Tamron is nicer)

 

2)Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 (has 2.8 when zoomed wide, decent quality images)

 

3)Tamron or Sigma 18-200 (not ideal, not f/2.8, but good for travel)

 

4)Canon 17-85 USM IS (supposedly the first 2 lenses are better than this lens)

 

I am on a limited budget, around $400. I know, some of the above lenses aren't

"great" but they seem pretty good for my price range. (Ideally, the Canon 17-55

f/2.8 IS would be nice, but it is too expensive for me). The 17-50 is really

nice, but lacks the zoom range, ideal for travel.

 

What are your thoughts on these lenses? Which ones should I consider or not

consider? Any votes for one over another? Or should I just get the Sigma 18-125

repaired, and use the 28-105 for the moment? My photography needs are mostly

around travel shots, and general purpose. I hear people complain about

build-quality of Sigma, but I'm very impressed with my 18-125 considering how

many times I've dropped it.

 

Thanks,

Amol

Sigma 20 f/1.8? I bought one and I love it. You already have the otherr focal lengths

covered, so why go for one zoom that replicates what you already have?

Andrew,

 

Yes, I had thought about a wide prime, or an Ultra-wide (ex: 12-24, 10-20, 11-18, or 15-30), to complement my 28-105. My main concern is that I often use the 18-50 range. So, it would mean switching out lenses often. Taking one shot at 28mm (44mm)using the 28-105 and then switching out lenses to get a shot at 20mm (32mm). 20mm also does not seem quite wide enough on the XT.

 

I figure a 17(or 18)-** zoom would eliminate that problem. It makes it a lot easier. One of primary purposes for this lens is for "travel", using primes and switching lenses can be time consuming and also, makes one look like an easy target, in a tourist area. I'll keep it in mind though. A prime with f/1.8 might come in handy in low light situations like museums, but that's kind of why I was looking at the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I could spend the $400 on the 20mm and deal with switching lenses, or I could get a 17-50 f2.8. For me, travel-wise, having a "zoom" with a decent f-stop, is more useful, than a prime. (I would keep the 28-105 for back-up, or portrait-type shots)

 

Thanks,

 

Amol

I'd get the Tamron because of f2.8 and its very good image quality. There might be focussing issues, though, especially on the XT, so be sure to get a good sample or have the option to change it if you're not satisfied.

 

If like the longer zoom range, get the 17-85 IS. It's a nice all-purpose lens for travelling. In Europe, there is currently 150 EUR rebate on this lens.

I have the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and 17-70/2.8-4.5 (2 shooters/dslrs in the family) and both are fine.

 

After coming back from a Jamaica trip tho, I'm seriously thinking about a lens with more range the next time, since many times you just aren't in a position to change lenses.

Yeah, I am a little concerned about the range of the 17-50.

 

Kin, do you feel like the 17-70 still does not have enough range?

 

Perhaps, I should just get my Sigma 18-125 repaired?

 

 

Thanks for the responses,

Amol

The 17-70 is fine _most_ of the time. My most heavily used lens is a 50-500 @ the 500mm end, so that should tell you where my interest is :).