amanda_b. Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I have an older Sigma wide-angle lens that I used to use for my film Digital Rebel. I switched to digital a few years ago and have been using that wide angle lens for a while with no problems. Recently the drive gear went bad on it and I have a quote of $200 from Sigma to repair it. Also I learned that this lens is not "compatible" with digital SLRs like the new wide angles are, but it's only $10 to upgrade it. I use my wide-angle A LOT....my question is, should I spend the $200 plus to repair and upgrade it or spend the almost $600 on a new, already compatible lens? Money is an issue, but I'll spend the $600 if it's a vast difference... Anyone ever upgrade their wide-angle like this? After doing so, is there a big difference between the ugraded lens and a new one? Just wondering what all the upgrade really entails and if it's worth it. Thanks in advance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_earussi1 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Would help to know what wide angle you've got as the newer lenses may be a lot better optically making it worthwhile for that alone for you to upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amanda_b. Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 <b>Edit:</b> The old lens that is broken and needs to be repaired and upgraded is a Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 Ex Aspherical....thanks for asking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 What camera are you using? If it's something with an APS-C sized ("cropped") sensor, then that's really not very wide at all. 17mm would be just kinda-wide. Has that focal length been treating you pretty well? Did you find yourself using the wider end of that more, or the longer end? You have some great choices out there (the Tokina 11-16/2.8 might really talk to you, if you need that extra speed), or the very nice Sigma 10-20 HSM. That's when wide really starts to act wide on such cameras, and your creative options really expand. And for less than $600! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_earussi1 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 The Sigma 10-20 is a very nice lens, the corners never quite get crisp but the main body of the image is very clear and sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amanda_b. Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 <b>Edit:</b> I am using a Canon Digital Rebel XT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 The 17mm end of your old lens is only about a 27mm-equivalent on your digital 15x22mm sensor camera. If you use that a lot, you might well appreciate the even wider 10-20mm Sigma. You can buy a new, image-stabilized 18-55mm EFS lens (reviewed rather well) for rather less than $200, so I can't see much advantage to repairing the Sigma. I don't remember encountering your Sigma 17-35 before, perhaps it is a gem? If not, go for the new Canon kit lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Sigma 15-30 mm sounds like what you need, even for a dReb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Get a new Tamron 17-50 2.8. Its only $400 and its longer, faster ( 2.8 throughout ) and an overall very good performer on a 350D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amanda_b. Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 <b>Edit:</b> I do a lot of house/architecture photography and interiors. That's what I use the wide angle for mostly. The lens I was looking at was the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM....some of you are saying there are better, less expensive, and "more wide" lenses out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Amanda the Sigma 10-20 will be a better choice for you then the Tamron I mentioned above. Its the least expensive UW lens right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 You're looking at the right lens, Amanda, and won't regret it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_earussi1 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Thje Sigma 10-20 is as wide as you can get, just stop it down to f11 and you should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 There is no way an older Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 is worth putting $200 into. I think the Canon 10-22 is a better lens than the Sigma 10-20, but it does cost more. Optically they are both good, and much better (and much wider) than the Sigma 17-35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freelance Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Canon 10-22 is the best option. Saving in lenses never is a good business. You will be regretting it every time you see the cheaper lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Au contraire, Antonio, some of us smile inwardly every time we use our "cheaper" lens. ;) There's something called "appropriate technology". The Sigma is just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 As JDM, says. In this case, I not only smile at the very appropriate (for me) Sigma 10-20, but also the very nice fast prime lens I was also able to purchase with the money I saved. Both serve me very, very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_earussi1 Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 In the test I've seen the Sigma is actually a little better than the Canon: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/135/cat/11 http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/171/cat/31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
15sunrises Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I own the Sigma 10-20 and was also at one point thinking about the Canon 10-22. If you're trying to save some dollars, there is absolutely no reason to not get the Sigma. The image quality is very very good in the vast majority of useful conditions, the build quality is also great. I'm quite sure that the people that say it's pointless to buy this lens and you need to get the Canon haven't actually used it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amanda_b. Posted September 15, 2008 Author Share Posted September 15, 2008 Thank you all. I am going to have them send the broken lens back without repairing it and save my money for the latest sigma wide-angle. I appreciate all the input! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now