debs_net Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Hi lensophiles I am going to purchase a Canon XSI/450D body and a lens. I will use the lens to photograph mainly landscapes (need a wideish angle) and for travel (country, city, wherever - I do a lot of this). I would love it to have macro capability (I do love flowers!) as well as ability for good background blur (bokeh? I am new to this!). As I can only afford to buy one lens right now (up to about USD$600) it also needs to be usable in lowish light situations. Having read loads of lens reviews and threads, I realise that my price range requires compromise in features (can't have it all!), but I have narrowed my choice down: - Canon 17-85mm IS USM f4/5.6 (good focal length, IS, but only f4 - does IS compensate?) - Tamron 17-50mm XR f2.8 (shorter focal length, have heard good things about it, f2.8) - Sigma 24-70 EX f2.8 (good focal length, mixed reviews about lack of sharpness, bad copies and 'Sigma warmth') - Sigma 30mm f1.4 (clear picture, no zoom flexibility, old-school one-length lens will force me to be creative?) Can anyone help me to narrow my lens list further? Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Sigma 17-70. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinmaya Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Lens buying is always tricky when you have to balance budget. Of of your list, and based on your requirement I would buy Tamron 17-50mm. Note that this is EF-S mount only, would not work on full frame; 5d. If you don't mind 28mm wide, I would suggest two of the following Canon 28-135mm f3.5/5.6 IS (I love the IS feature, and tele end reach. Folks who got a good 200$ deal with 40D would be selling this lens for lesser price, for about 300$ in new condition) Tamron 28-70mm f2.8 (Based on reviews I read better IQ than 28-135mm, but does not have IS) If you can stretch your budget, nothing beats Canon 24-105mm F4 IS And some folks I now use 17-40mm F4 as their walk around lens. I love this lens, but for me walk around lens means atleast 28mm wide and atleast 70mm long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_hall4 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 There are some killer deals on Supercoupon right now. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS would be a nice lens for your Xsi. It is on sale for $850 with the coupon. The 24-105 (my choice for my 40 D) is on sale for $950. It is an exceptional lens. I mean exceptional. I upgraded my 28-135 kit lens with the 24-105. Much better lens than the 28-135. No comparison. I know you mentioned a $600 budget for the lens, but if you can dig up another $300, you will have a fine lens with no concerns about needing to upgrade later. Below is a link to the coupon codes. When purchasing, you just enter the coupon code. Buying from B&H of course, where these coupons are to be used. I got my 24-105 and 100-400 using these coupon codes. http://www.supercoupon.com/Coupons/Electronics/B%26H_Coupon_for_Canon/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arie_vandervelden1 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 IMO there is no single lens that does all the things you list. Why compromise, why buy a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none lens when you can buy two lenses within your stated budget. Yes you will have to change lenses but it's no big deal it's what SLR is all about. My suggestion: get the 18-55 IS kit lens (landscape, travel) and a Canon 85/1.8 (portraiture, flowers, travel, low light, bokeh). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer_t Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 -- "Canon 17-85mm IS USM f4/5.6 (good focal length, IS, but only f4 - does IS compensate?) " You should regard the 17.85 as an f/5.6 lens not as an f/4 lens. You get f/4 only from 17mm to 24mm (or so) ... from then on it goues quite quickly to f/5,6 as maxaperture. ... Also, IS compensates camera shake (within limits), but not movement of the subject. (The latter can only be cured with a faster lens ... f/2.8 or better.) Nevertheless, as a one-lens only solution its not a bad choice. ... On the other hand there are some nice user impressions on the EFS 18-200 (which just has hit the market). If you cannot decide ... go with the EFS 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS for the beginning (make sure you get the IS version). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arie_vandervelden1 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Just had another idea: how about 18-55 IS, plus Canon 60/2.8 macro. Within budget! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris.sager Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Tamron FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Like Arie, I wonder why you do not opt for the "kit" solution of the camera with the new EF-S 18-55mm IS lens. It's a heck of a bargain, and a very good starter lens. I personally love the 17-85mm but it's getting a little "long in the tooth" and I would think that the kit lens is a fiscally sound choice. For the price of the 17-85 alone you could also get a 55-250 IS lens in addition to the 18-55 and cover a wide range. For US$50 dollars more, you can throw in a used 50mm f/1.8 Mk II prime for low light and portrait work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_c.d._thiermann Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Debs, I own a 450D and the 18-55 IS & 55-250 IS. Both lenses are very satisfying and prove to be a good combination to each other and with the 450D. See for yourself (see the flower :-)) on: http://www.digicamshop.nl/review/51270/canon-eos-450d-ef-s-18-55-mm-is-ef-s-55-250-mm-is.html Good luck! Jan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 General purpose, macro and good background blur? The first lens that comes to mind is the Canon 24-70. It is near- macro capable (a good sized flower can more-or-less fill the viewfinder), decent zoom range (but a little long on 1.6 crop that you have), and background-blur in buckets, due to it's constant f2.8 max aperture. It will blow the budget, though around $1100 US I think, say through B&H. Have a read at the-digital-picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amol Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I'll second the recommendation for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I've also heard good info about the Sigma 17-70, if you want more range (also has some type of macro abilities). In general, I find that 24/28mm range is not wide enough on my Digital Rebel. The 17-85 has range, but there is some complaints about sharpness, and it is not f/2.8. A Tamron 17-50 runs about $400, that leaves you $200 for another lens. You could add a Canon 55-250 IS for about $276. For $676, you will have a nice set-up. This is my current set-up. It works well. I have range from 17-250mm cover. And the lens quality is pretty good. 55-250 is not f/2.8, but has image stabilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debs_net Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 Wow! Prompt and thoughtful responses. Thank you! I am currently living in London and coming to NYC next week in hope of realising my dslr dreams (and would you believe that B&H is close for the duration of my stay?). So I'm desperately trying to wrap my head around an I-can- afford-it so-fab-I-don't-want-to-take-it-off-the-body lens and am currently leaning towards the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II ... As always, there is so much differentiated expertise here; if only there was one perfect answer (and I'm sure there isn't one ... not even at 'L' prices!). As Arie says: there's no one lens that's realistically going to do all I want it to do, although I'd like something sharp, fast and flexible (for the price, of course) while I save for additions to my kit. I know. I'm deluded. I have considered the 18-55mm IS kit lens but have been warned off by friends' comments (most of whom had the pre- IS version) and some unfavourable reviews. I appreciate that this lens has a good focal length and is an absolute bargain when bought as part of the 450D/XSI kit but I would rather spend more on a body + lens that I'll want to keep than play with a lens I will want to quickly upgrade (false econonomy?) as I come to terms with the capabilities of my camera. Is the 18-55mm IS kit lens a 'keeper'? Are any of these lenses keepers? The 50mm f1.8 is another bargain buy that interests me as a 'sure! throw that in, too! sounds fun to play with!' lens, although I'm not sure quite what situations / shooting distance it will suit (portrait but too long for landscape?). I am reassured by something I read in one of zillions of reviews, like: "it's better to be on that mountain at sunrise with a bad lens than with no lens at all". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debs_net Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 But now I think I've added the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM to my short(longer?)list. Must read more reviews ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
becks_panno Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I purchased my 450D (XSI) body only for about $620 no tax/no ship fee, and picked up Canon EF F4 24-105mm IS USM L lens. It was the only lens I purchased. I didn't bother with the kit lens because I felt that the 18-55mm while cheap just wasn't good enough. In any case..purchase a lens that suits your needs (what you like to shoot ...landscape/portrait/macro) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan_meador Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 on a crop body, even the 17-85 is not that wide. My suggestion, sigma 10-20mm for wide angle (very wide even with the crop factor) which will cover your landscape, cityscape needs. Canon 50mm 1.8, should not be discounted just because it is cheap, gives good clarity and bokeh, and at 1.8 works very well in low light situations where a tripod isn't practical. You should be able to get all this for around $500 USD...leaving enough for a simple, cheap tripod for landscapes (yes you really should get one if you want to take sunsets or cityscapes at night). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan_meador Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Oh, and the 50mm 1.8 will work quite well for basic macro work. Not really for high magnification, but you can get inexpensive 'adapter' lenses that mount to the front of the lens and give some increased magnification. In the meantime, save up for the 100mm 2.8 macro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinmaya Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I guess, how wide is wide, is individual perspective. Most of the time, for the kind of photography I do, 28mm (on crop body) is pretty wide, for some 17mm for others 10mm. The more wider it gets, for me, the more complicated it becomes to compose. If you have to decide on what is wide angle you need, my suggestion is to just goto a camera store and try taking some pictures with a crop body plust 18-something lens. You would get a decent idea on how wide you like to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbauer Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I have to completely agree with the first response that you received - the Sigma 17-70mm is a GREAT all around lens with a nice wide angle and yet also just a bit of zoom on the long end. Large f/2.8 aperture when wide open and macro capability as well. This seems to meet all of your requirements and it does it for at or just slightly under $400. You could also look at the Sigma 18-200mm model with optical stabilization. Great range and OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Amol said: >>The 17-85 has range, but there is some complaints about sharpness, and it is not f/2.8. << There is no problem with its _sharpness_, the problems are a degree of barrel distortion at the wide end and some chromatic aberration -- although these are easily repaired in Photoshop. The IS makes up for a lot of the "slowness" in terms of aperture. I think that the vast majority of users prefer it as their favorite lens. Some of the suggestions are fine lenses, but IS is really a big deal, and it is practically free in the "kit" lenses. For many these (the 18-55 and the 55-250) will be lenses that they will keep and continue to use even as they upgrade their working lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgpinc Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Debs, Don't get into paralysis by analysis. I have and use the combination or XSi and 18-55mm IS. It is light and sharp but slow. You can see some examples in the most recent pics in my Chinatown portfolio. But I also use the Canon 17-55mm which is a much better but heavier lens. I have used the Tamron 17-50mm in a demo and it is a very good lens. If I had to only have one lens in that length and budget mattered I'd have the Tamron definitely. It is very good at 2.8 and gets better stopped down a little. There are good wedding and event photographers that use it as their main lens. Just get one and start making pictures. Best of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_henry Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Canon XSI with 18-55mm kit lens ($670) + Tokina 11-18mm ($464 after rebate) + Canon EF-S 60mm Macro ($400) The lens parts of that package total $924 (B&H website prices), so the budget has been blown, but you could always buy either the Tokina or the 60mm Macro a bit later once you've saved-up. Cheers and let us know what you decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_osullivan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Get a Sigma 17-70 $300 for 90% of your shots and a Canon 50 1.8 $80 for those times when you need low light performance and nicer bokeh. That'll leave you a couple hundred for a flash or tripod. These two lenses trump or tie every lens you mentioned here on image quality and sharpness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian21664882414 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Hi Debs, I've owned the Sigma 24-70, Sigma 50mm macro, Sigma 70-300 Macro, Sigma 180 Macro, Canon 24mm, Canon 50mm f1/8, Canon 18-55 no IS and Canon 85 f/18. Steer clear of Sigma 24 - 70: sometimes it was tack sharp and ok (15% of the time) and the rest of times it war really crappy. Since then I've sold all of them except: Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 85 f/1.8 and the Sigma 180 Macro which is gorgeous. Also, the Sigma 70 - 300 produced outstanding results for it's price (check http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrianlibotean - and search for sigma 70 300). My honest advice to you if you want to shoot macro is to get a lens that's at *least* 100mm long - otherwise you will find it difficult to get a smooth bokeh and separate the foreground. You can also check this site for macro and general Canon gear reviews: http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles-photo_essays.htm. PS: You don't need to buy them all at once :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 >>> - Tamron 17-50mm XR f2.8 (shorter focal length, have heard good things about it, f2.8) That's what I use on my 450D - great lens. Great combination - especially for street photography. Have taken tons of street pix with that combo... www.citysnaps.net 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