New lens to replace kit 18-55 and 70-300

[eelko_jan_groenevelt]

Hello all,

 

This question has been asked loads of times already but I couldn't find a thread that really answered my question

with the lenses that I have in mind.

 

I have a 300D (yes oldie) and I have the 18-55 kit lens and a 70-300. I want to replace them with one lens (I

mainly use my camera for holidays).

 

I looked at a lot of lenses and I concluded I'm going to choose between the following three but I can't make up

my mind :

1. Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

2. Sigma 18-125 f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM

3. Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 DC OS

 

Now, the questions I have are the following :

 

1. If I take the Canon I lose on the wide angle end. How much of a difference does that make and should I maybe

carry the 18-55 with me as well (which is not what I want - carrying multiple lenses)

2. Does the 300D support the HSM in the Sigma? I.e. will the AF work?

 

3. Should I go for focal length/more zoom instead of aperture (if I take the 18-200 I will have less aperture in

the long end)?

 

4. I read a lot of people here like the 28-135 and 28-105. Is Canon quality better overall?

 

5. Maybe I should go for the 24-105 L? (But again less wide angle, shorter focal length, I know the glass is

better but how about the f/4 only?

6. Can anyone suggest another lens? I'm looking to spend $1000/ﾣ500 (or more if I decide to go for L)

 

Apologies for the long question but I really can't make a decision!

 

Thanks

Eelko

[ulrich_brandl]

1. Take your 18-55, put it in the 28mm and test it by yourself. How much wideangle you need depends on your personal style, but most photographers will miss the range from 18-28. Replacing the 70-300 with one of the options in your list will degrade image quality in the overlapping renge, the 70-300 is a darn good lens (if you speak about the Canon 70-300mm IS).

 

2. The 300D will support the Sigma HSM. But you will always find some users who complain about problems in a certain lens-camera combination.

 

3. If you need 200mm the you have no option. f:6.3 is very slow and will result in a very dim viewfinder. Only usable under good light conditions. (Again: The 70-300 is MUCH better here). You can expect better image quality with the smaller zoom range.

 

4. The 28-105, 28-135 have a much narrower zoom range than the "suerzooms" 18-135 or 18-200mm. The larger the zoom range the more difficult is it to maintain high optical quality over the whole range.

 

5. The 24-105 L is an excellent lens. Again, I would not use it as my ONLY lens as I would miss the wide angle range.

 

Better think twice before you go with a one lens only system.

[richard_martin10]

It is impossible to get everything you need into one lens, there has to be some compromise. I would stay away from both Sigma lenses, especially the 18-125. My buddy had one, it was a dog as far as being able to lock focus, and the IQ wasn't that great either. I had the 28-135 and liked it alot, but 28mm turned out to be way to long for the usage I needed. May I suggest the Canon 17-85 IS as a good all around lens for you. This lens translates to a traditional 28-135 with the 1.6 cropping factor, and the IS should help you in low light situations as long as your subjects are not moving. It may be the best single lens for your purposes.

[kasperhettinga]

I've been doing similar thinking...and made some decisions which are not in your list:

 

First, I bought a sigma 17-70 lens, which is a very useful and sharp all round lens. I also like its close-up abilities (not real macro, like the name suggests, but very nice still).

 

To get more telereach, I would like to get a 70-300, either sigma APO or canon IS, depending on budget. As I hardly need more than 70mm, I don't think I will spend more than the sigma APO costs.

 

For more wide reach, I am thinking about the sigma 10-20. I would like this lens especially for city-pics on holidays... I know I will use the 10-20 more during my holidays than a telelens, but that is very personal off course.

[ryan_rittenhouse]

I'd say go w/ the 24-105L, I honestly don't think you'll miss the 18-24 range (could be wrong though, your call) and the 24-105L's ruggedness, Sharpness, and IS make it a great investment. I've never found it's f/4 to be a handicap. Just make sure you don't get rid of your 70-300 as you might end up missing it's reach further down the line. Though you might find that after looking at the images from the 24-105L you don't want to go back to it.

[bueh]

If you want a one-lens solution, go for a high-end digicam (i.e., Canon Powershot G9 or S5-IS). <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="single-lens reflex cameras">SLRs</abbr> are all about having different lenses for different tasks, and using a <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="digital single-lens reflex camera">dSLR</abbr> with a superzoom lens is pretty pointless, in my humble opinion.

<p>

But if you are set on this scenario, a Nikon D40 with the AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm would probably better than trying to find an equivalent solution for Canon.

[tdigi]

I would strongly suggest going in and trying some lenses out that interest you. I did the same thing as you and I could not

decide until I actually tried a few out. It took me like 5 mins to decide on the 24-105. I know its a big long on a 30D but that

depends on your style and what you like to shoot. For me it was perfect and well worth the $1000 price tag over the 17-55

which I thought felt cheap next to it. I also have fast primes when I really want or need low light or very short DOF.

[ajb2222]

Also look at the Tamron 28-300 VC. I almost bought this lens then decided to go for the canon 70-300 IS.

[chris.sager]

The two leading single lens solutions are definitly the G9 and D40/18-200 VR combo. Canon doesnt have an answer to the 18-200 at any price at this time. It far outpaces the Sigma offering in quality & reliability.

[JDMvW]

Read Bob Atkin's and Photozone.de reviews of the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens, before you rule it out. It has its

flaws, but is a super all around lens for a crop-body dSLR. Covers the whole wide angle to modest telephoto

range, and you can do with it and a super wide for most purposes.

 

I'm reluctant myself to buy non-IS lenses for longer zooms, and you really do need something down there in the

18mm range, so I'd check out the reviews of the two Sigma lenses you mention in your post if you don't find the

EF-S 17-85 attractive.

[george_brock]

Like you Eelko, I had the same problem.

 

After reading this forum and many lens reviews I finished up buying the EFS 17-85 IS USM. I've had it for just over a year now, have used it at home in New Zealand and overseas in Turkey, Dubai and Norfolk Island under very different lighting conditions and have found it to be an excellent all round lens - not quite the crispness of a prime but certainly very adequate.

 

I did seriously consider the Canon 28-135 and it is a very good lens but I found that I would miss the wider angle the 17 - 85 gave me as I enjoy taking landscapes more than the longer reach of the 135 - a pity Canon don't make a 17-135 lol.

 

Whatever you decide, enjoy using it.

 

Cheers,

George Brock.

[steve_dunn2]

<ol>

<li>You lose a lot on the wide end: virtually the entire wide end, really. How often do you use your 18-55 wider than 28? Probably quite a bit, but only you can say for sure. If you go wider than 28 a fair bit and you want to get the 28-135, then yes, you will have to keep carrying the 18-55 around with you. The 28-135 is a very good consumer zoom lens, definitely better than the kit 18-55, so it's an upgrade in that regard, but you'll still end up having to take two lenses with you, and not only that - two lenses which give you less zoom range on the long end.

<li>Yes, HSM should work just fine.

<li>Only you can tell what your priorities are. But what you currently has is f/5.6 at the long end, and the hyperzoom you cite is f/6.3. That's only half a stop and will not be a deal-breaker. The increased compromises inherent in a hyperzoom should be a bigger concern.

<li>Canon makes cheap pieces of crap, top-notch pro lenses, and everything between them. The 28-135 is an above-average consumer zoom in every way: its build quality, AF, and optics are all above average for consumer zooms but below the standards of pro lenses. Canon makes two 28-105s; the cheap one is a prime example of getting what you pay for, while the mid-priced one is a good consumer zoom (but a bit below the 28-135). Sigma also makes everything from cheap pieces of crap, through decent consumer lenses, to serious pro lenses.

<li>The 24-105 is a pro-quality lens: pro build quality, pro mechanics, pro optics. If you were to compare it to a fast zoom or a prime, then yes, the f/4 is potentially a concern, but you're comparing it to other lenses which are essentially the same speed or slower. Sure, some of them start at f/3.5, but that's only half a stop (which, again, is not a big deal), and that's only applicable at the very wide end; through the vast majority of the zoom range of each of those other lenses, they're the same speed as, or slower than, the 24-105. Assuming you can afford the 24-105, the same question applies as for the 28-135: can you make do without the wide end? 28x1.6 is basically not wide at all; 24x1.6 is only barely into wide-angle territory.

</ol>

[eelko_jan_groenevelt]

Thanks everybody for your help.

 

Taking in all the advice I'm leaning towards replacing the kit lens with the 17-85 IS and keep on carrying the 70-300. First of all because I really like the 70-300 and secondly because maybe there is no such thing as a one lens only system. There probably is but the compromises involved will always be in the back of mind saying : "why didn't I keep this lens, why didn't I buy this lens" etc.

 

I'm going to have a look at the 17-85 in a shop today and see what it's like.

 

I'll let you know what choice I made.

 

Thanks again.

Eelko