Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 18, 2005, 12:34 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 66
Default

Hi, I need some advice to buy a new lens, I have the Canon 17-55mm f/3.5 but I want to buy little better lens and I saw the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 in 369.00 is that any good lens? or get couple hundreds more and buy the Canon 17-85mm ?

thanks

amatheu:?
AMATHEU is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 18, 2005, 3:47 AM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
Default

I got the SIGMA 24-70mm f2.8 DG EX MACRO

but beware of combine use for 20D some driven issue

sinceyou use 350d in my opinion you can still go for it.

But I really really suggested trying CANON ef 50mm f1.4 or SIGMA 50 mm f2.8 MACRO

amazing resolution a different level
Luff Chen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2005, 10:39 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 66
Default

hI, thanks for the replay but I don't use the canon 350d I use the 20D, but I'm thinking buy a better lens because I use the original 17-55mm from canon, so that is why I want to know before expend the money because if the sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 is almos same than the canon 18-55mm f.3.5 I don't expend the money.

thanks

amatheu
AMATHEU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2005, 12:46 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

AMATHEU wrote:
Quote:
hI, thanks for the replay but I don't use the canon 350d I use the 20D, but I'm thinking buy a better lens because I use the original 17-55mm from canon, so that is why I want to know before expend the money because if the sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 is almos same than the canon 18-55mm f.3.5 I don't expend the money.

thanks

amatheu
amatheu,

Here is what I know about the lenses you are talking about, and I added one more:

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 non-USM (~$70) - a very inexpensive kit zoom that optically is the same as the new USM version.When theXT was released Canon added USM to this lens. Note that the Canon 20D kit still comes with it, while some stores (B&H) give you the choice to purchase the 20D with the newer lens for $70 more.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 USM ($140) - a veryinexpensive kit zoom that can take reasonable to good photos if you know the limitations of the lens. Don't expect this lens to be very sharp wide open.

Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS ($600) - an excellent zoom that approaches the optical quality of the Canon 24-70 2.8L (sharp). It's a bit slow, but has IS which is a nice plus.

Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro DF ($440) - optically close to the Canon 17-85, but is a much faster lens, so it's much better for low light situations (and f2.8 will give you more control over depth of field). I've never owned a Sigma, so I can't tell you how it would compare to the 17-85 as far as build quality or reliability goes.



From the above, I'd probably pick the Canon 17-85 if you don't need a fast lens and the Sigma if you do. But if money wasn't an issue the Canon 24-70 f2.8L ($1150) is a fantastic lens (IMO the sharpest available in the standard zoom class and very high quality build ... but very heavy and expensive).

BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2005, 2:39 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

first off.. that sigma 24-70 is a fantastic lens and is not far off the canon in image quality, and i like the build of the sigma ex series, nice fit and finish..(but the canon IS fantastic, just pricey)

besides the speed issues that bob brought up.. there is also the issue of focal length.. the 24-70 is going to become a 38mm at the wide end with the 1.6x factor of the 20d while the 17-85 is going to become a 28mm... that is actually quite a big difference.. so if you need that extra wide angle, the 24-70 would not be a good option.. if you needed speed and wide angle you could look at sigma's 18-50 2.8 or pair the sigma 24-70 2.8 with a nice sigma 17-35 2.8-4.0...

just a couple other options..

best regards, dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2005, 7:03 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
... so if you need that extra wide angle, the 24-70 would not be a good option.. if you needed speed and wide angle you could look at sigma's 18-50 2.8 or pair the sigma 24-70 2.8 with a nice sigma 17-35 2.8-4.0...

just a couple other options..
There's an advantage when opting for the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 17-35 f/2.8-4: This combination is necessary for some folks who still hold on to their collection of film bodies, or thinking about going to full-frame in the future. Theses are not 'digital' lenses and work on 24x36 film and full-frame cameras. If one doesn't really need the f/2.8 (for that sunrise or sunset seascape) however, the 12-24 EX combined with the 24-70 EX might be the better the choice...This will save you from another 'costly' upgrade in the future to the 'superwide'!


BTW this 17-35mm f/2.8-4 is highly underated (again check its MTF againstits full-framecompetition wide opened):



NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2005, 11:10 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 66
Default

Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
first off.. that sigma 24-70 is a fantastic lens and is not far off the canon in image quality, and i like the build of the sigma ex series, nice fit and finish.. (but the canon IS fantastic, just pricey)

besides the speed issues that bob brought up.. there is also the issue of focal length.. the 24-70 is going to become a 38mm at the wide end with the 1.6x factor of the 20d while the 17-85 is going to become a 28mm... that is actually quite a big difference.. so if you need that extra wide angle, the 24-70 would not be a good option.. if you needed speed and wide angle you could look at sigma's 18-50 2.8 or pair the sigma 24-70 2.8 with a nice sigma 17-35 2.8-4.0...

just a couple other options..

best regards, dustin
thanks dustin for the advice but the problem is the canon is to to to expensive the 24-70 is very expensive lens 1349.00, sigma is very good to and less expensive, the problem is why pay for name when the quality is almost same? I have nice beatiful picture take with sigma lens, sharp and vivid colors.

thanks

amatheu
AMATHEU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2005, 11:42 AM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 92
Default

There is no comparison between the kit lens and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. The comparison is more between the Sigma and Canon 24-70 f2.8s.

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/2470shootout

Best wishes
fstopjojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2005, 2:02 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

fstopjojo wrote:
Quote:
There is no comparison between the kit lens and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. The comparison is more between the Sigma and Canon 24-70 f2.8s.

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/2470shootout

Best wishes

The Sigma is a very good value. From all of the samples I've seen though IMO the Canon is still better, especially with regards to contrast and bokeh. Just something more "3D" about the pics taken with the Canon.
BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2005, 9:57 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 47
Default

I really like what you did with shot; it looks like you stopped way down and then had a slow shutter speed. The water looks fabulous.

BTW, do you live nearby? Or were you just in Maryland on vacation?
tkrotchko is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:41 AM.