Having a terrible time choosing a lens

[jennifer ann]

I am having a very tough time deciding on which lens to purchase for my XTi for

an everyday walk around lens. I am new and very leary of buying anything but

Canon, but Canon is much more expensive. I think I have narrowed my search down

to these two lens: Sigma 17-70 and the gold ring series Canon 28-105.

I do not think either of these has IS, which I would like. My budget is approx.

$350. Please give me your opinions on these 2 lenses.

Thanks!

[jeff_higdon]

Consider a used Canon 17-85 IS. I found it much better than either of the 28-105 models offered by Canon and it has IS. Plus, alot of people prefer something a bit wider than 28mm for the Xti. Therefore either the Sigma 17-70 ($369 at Adorama) or the Canon 17-85 (new $515 at B&H, used in the mid $300's various places). Or consider the new Canon 18-55 IS which is less than both of these. It has received quite good reviews though it does not have the build quality of the 17-85 or USM/FTM.

[tdigi]

With a budget of $350 Canon gives few high quality options so Tamron or Sigma may be

your best bet. What do you like to shoot? IMO IS is not as important as a fast lens so I

would go for a 2.8 zoom over IS.

 

1 pretty good option if you want to stick with Canon brand is the 18-55 IS ( new kit lens )

for around $180 and a 50 1.8 for around $75. Then you can save up toward a flash. Both

are nice quality and very small and it give you both a fast lens and a light zoom for well

under your budget.

 

2. A Tamron 28-75 2.8 or 17-50 2.8 is a nice walk around lens if you dont mind going off

brand.

 

I have the Tamron 28-75 and I get great results with it. I have used the Canon 18-55 IS

and its not bad at all.

 

good luck

[arie_vandervelden1]

I'd go for the Sigma. 28 mm is not wide enough with APSC, IMO

 

Also, consider Tamron 17-50/2.8. A tad more at $420. I really like mine. f/2.8 across the zoom range sure is a nice thing to have.

[jon_worth]

I second Tommy. Go with the new kit lens for now so that you can get some experience under your belt before making your next lens purchase.

 

--Jon

[JDMvW]

The 17-85mm IS is

 

fairly high on barrel distortion at the wide end, but this can be fixed easily in software.

 

heavy compared to a kit lens (but still light by comparison to what we used to put up with in film days)

 

But

 

It is probably the handiest lens in the arsenal for an almost always ready lens for a walk around. You will never notice the distortion in natural settings, and it is not that bad if you stay away from the widest setting even for things like architecture. It is the small sensor equivalent of the 28-whatever mm zooms of full-frame cameras.

 

Even reviewers who note its compromises on the distortion front, still say they find themselves using it more than other lenses in their kits.

 

Bottomline: if you are an architectural specialist this is not your lens, but it's great otherwise. The IS lets you shoot indoors at high ISOs, handheld.

 

For your budget, you could get the new IS version of the 18-55mm AND the 55-250mm IS. They are lightly built, but will do a swell job. Canon finally decided to respond to the Nikon challenge in the kit lens arena.<div></div>

[ken munn]

A plug for the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 in this situation. It is equivalent to a classic walk-around

zoom range (28-80), has very good image quality, and is built like a brick outhouse. Around

$420 US pricing, according to Amazon. And at f2.8 there's really no need for IS unless you

want to shoot in a coal mine.

[ken munn]

Shot with the Sigma 18-50 at 18:

[g dan mitchell]

As a new Canon DSLR photographer using an XTi, I strongly recommend that you use the EFS 18-55 f/4-5.6

image stabilized "kit" lens before you start investing in other lenses. This is a fine little lens sold at a very

good price, and it reportedly produces quite good image results.

 

After you shoot this inexpensive lens for awhile you'll develop a much clearer idea about what other lenses

might be right for you, or you may decide that it is a fine lens for your type of shooting.

 

Let me warn you of two types of advice/lenses to avoid unless you personally hold opinions that are

somewhat unusual about ideal lenses:

 

Some will recommend that you start with a 50mm prime. Don't do it. I'd be glad to explain why if you want,

but ask.

 

Avoid zoom lenses whose focal lengths where intended for film SLRs rather than for your crop sensor DSLR.

Often these only go as wide as about 28mm (like your "Canon 28-105"). 28mm is not really a wide angle lens

at all on a crop body. For this you would more likely want something that goes to 17mm or 18mm... like that

kit lens.

 

One more thing... The EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lens that a few people mention _could_ turn out to be a good

choice in the end, but that is not quite a certain thing. I'd still start out with the kit lens if I were you.

 

Dan

[jimstrutz]

You have several good choices to choose from, but the 28-105 isn't one of them. Not a bad lens, but it's not wide enough. Same thing for the 24-85, or 28-135 Canon lenses. They're all fine lenses, but if you're normal you will want something starting below 20mm.

 

Watch! Someone will get on real soon and claim that they find the "28-to-whatever" to be the perfect walk around lens. But just remember that these are not *normal* people. God made a few *special* people because he likes variety, but don't fall for their drivel. :)

 

Anyway good choices are Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, or Canon's new 18-55 with the IS feature. You can choose between lower cost with IS, or higher cost with faster aperture. The Canon 17-85 IS is good, but not even close to your stated price range. Same with Tokina's new 16-50 f/2.8. Actually, the Sigma and Tamron are higher too, but at least closer.

 

Beware though, there have been numerous complaints on the internet about how poorly these normal range Sigma lenses focus with consistent accuracy. Same to a lesser degree with Tamron, and even occasionally with Canon lenses too. Personally, I've given up on Sigma for lenses within this range.

[jennifer ann]

Thanks everyone, but I think I am more confused that when I started!

Ok Dan, I would love to hear the reason not to purchase the 50 mm prime, as I am curious. The reason I am leaning towards the Sigma 17-70 is the Macro capabilities it has, along with being a good all around lens to keep on the camera. I also have the 75-300. I really wanted to get the 100mm Macro by Canon, as I absolutely love to get really close.

[tdigi]

Jenn thats what happens, you end up more confused but all the advice mentioned above is

good. I too would like to hear why its bad to start with a prime. I think just the opposite.

you learn to compose without relying on zoom and you can work with natural light and its

very cheap. humm anyway.

 

The Sigma lens is really not a macro its more of a close up lens. its nice but not true

macro. I Started with the Tamron and I still have it as a back up.

[manuel barrera houston,]

I did a lot of reading before purchasing a Tamron 17-50 and 28-75, they had the best overall reviews. I own sigmas, tamron, tokina, and Canon including a few L lens. For the price and need that you mentioned the Tamron 17-50 would be a good lens.

[mendel_leisk]

Check out The-Digital-Darkroom for informative reviews and comparison of the Canon lens. Here's a link to the "lens" page:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/

 

The Canon 17-85 is a good candidate, just a little over your budget. It's main drawback is it's a fairly slow lens, difficult to stop action in low light. If you use flash no problem.

[ron_kunzelman]

I have had the Sigma 17-70 for about 1-1/2 years and really like it. I first used it on a 350D. Took the Sigma 17-70 and a 70-300IS on a 2nd 350D body on a Safari in Tanzania. Both lenses worked great and having 2 bodies avoided the need for lens-changing in the very dusty environment there.

 

When I first got the 17-70 I made some tests and found that it was front-focusing somewhat. Sent it and the body to Sigma and it came back really sharp. The focusing is really nice.

 

Recently I bought a Canon 17-55 f2.8, so when my girlfriend and I go somewhere to take pictures (weddings, parties, etc) we both have a general purpose lens. Although the $1,000 Canon 17-55 is better, we are getting really good pictures with the Sigma 17-70.

[victor_kunkel2]

You might keep an eye on Craig's List and eBay for 17 - 85s that are within driving distance. I used them for that purpose in the film days and it worked out well. I don't buy site unseen. That said, it really sounds like either the 18 - 55 or 17 - 85 Canons (IS) would do well for you and, used, would be within your budget, if at the upper end. I have the 17 - 85 and love it. I played with the 18 - 55 and it was a good lens, but didn't have the reach for a walk about lens that I like.

[ken munn]

Beware if you're hoping to use a "macro" lens as a real macro. In reality they replicate (not

very well) macro by getting very close to the subject - so close that they're quite impractical

to use in many circumstances. My Sigma 18-50 f2.8 describes itself as macro, but it lies.

 

The attachment was taken with the lens almost touching the space bar.

[bob_osullivan]

I have the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 macro. It was actually my first lens. It remains one of my most used and sharpest lenses. You can't go wrong with it for the money. It also has 1-2 macro which comes in very handy. IS is less of an issue with the wide-normal lenses. With the money you save also pick up a 50mm 1.8 $80 for low light work. You'll be all set.

[jimstrutz]

I didn't say it above, but I don't find 50mm a good choice as a general use lens for digital cameras either. The copped field of view makes it behave more like an 80mm portrait lens than a normal lens. That's great if that's what you want, but it's too long for an indoor do-it-all low-light lens.

 

I tend to prefer wide lenses so I know I'm biased, but I found 35-40mm more practical on film cameras. So for me a 24-28mm lens would be more useful if I was looking for a low light general purpose prime for a crop sensor digital body. 28-35mm is more commonly recommended for a general purpose prime for the XTi.

 

Contrary to what I just said, I don't follow my own advice at all. I don't like the Canon choices below 35mm (because of high price or mediocre quality), so I use 50/1.8 & 100/2 for low light tele-primes and a Canon 17-55/2.8 IS for normal and wider options. The addition of IS at f/2.8 takes some of the sting out of not having a faster wide lens.

[lauren_macintosh]

You have gotten some good advise here either stay with 18-55mm IS lens or change to the 17-85,, EF-S IS lens , I bought the 17-85mm with my EOS20D and have not regretted it ever: the 17-85 has become my walk around lens: and I am Dam happy with it:

[markonestudios]

I agree with Tommy. 18-55 IS, 50 f/1.8 and a flash...