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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 22, 2005, 7:42 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 14
Default

I want to thank everyone for their time and input - I find your comments very helpful.

In review, I do not think that I need to large telephoto at this point but will probably add one to the inventory as time passes.

I would like to wrap this up as best as possible.

I think there are several choices:

1. get the 20D with the 18-55 lense and add a telephoto like the Sigma, or

2. get the 20D body, and then purchase two lenses, one shorter range and one longer range.

What do you guys think of the two options or is there a third?

David
DBerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 11:58 AM   #12
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I'd get the 20D with either the 17-85 as a kit (saves $100 or so) or the Sigma 18-125. I'd also get the 50mm f1.8 for low-light work as it's cheap, small & light (130g!).

And I'd stop there. When you get back you'll have a much better idea of what else you might like to get and I really don't think you'll miss terribly much with either of those two lenses that you can't get by zooming a bit with your feet.

After all this is your wedding anniversary trip not a photographic expedition. A bag full of new camera equipment is a lot less spouse-friendly than a new camera with 1 lens on it. Also less hassle to carry and leaves more space in your luggage allowance for souvenirs. :-)
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 2:18 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 14
Default

You are Solomonic my friend

thanks,

David
DBerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 3:21 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

:homey:I always figuredthe spouse was a handy way to have your equipment carted around and watched while you were busy.

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 4:05 PM   #15
Member
 
alan sh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 76
Default

DBerman wrote:
Quote:
I am about to purchase the 20D and am now in search of some advice from this learned community. My wife and I are traveling to Italy for the first time to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary.

Currently I am leaning towards the Canon 28-135 F3.5/5.6 USM IS. What do you guys think? Is this sufficient or should I get another lense, wider angle, for indoor use.

Thank you for your help.

I just did this - went to Rome. If you are in the countryside, then the 28-135 is fine. If in the towns, you will need a wider one - I have a 17-40L which I used a lot.
alan sh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 4:45 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 14
Default

what small lense would you recommend besides the 17-40 L? In order to try and save a few $ after buying the 20D and the 28-135 USM IS I would like to spend less on the wider angle lense.

Do you think the Sigma 18-125 is a good alternativeinstead ofbuying both Canon lenses?

How did you enjoy your trip by the way??

Thanks for your time,

David
DBerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 11:21 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 75
Default

I bought a 28-135 right out of the gate and now I it's for sale. With the DSLR "crop factor" I am always frustrated with the wide end. The long end is good, especially with IS but there again I find that when stretching that far I wish I had just a little more reach. 28-135 seems to be an awkward range.

Lately, if I only want to carry one lens, I find myself choosing the kit lens 18-55 foregoing (word?) debateable image quality for better focal range.

I am activly searching for reviews on the Tamron 18-200 that has just been released as well as the Sigma 18-200 due out soon.

From what I have read a good bang for the buck is, and what I will probably wind up with if the Tamron 18-200 turns out to be a flop is

Sigma 12-24 ~500
Sigma 18-125 ~250
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ~700

Granted these are not "L" quality but from all the user accounts I have read this is a good "budget" mix. Especially for a noob like myself.


For your trip to Italy I would reccommend the Sigma 18-125 over the Canon 28-135.
The Canon is huge and heavy hanging from your neck (I have been wearing one for 3 months) Also for ~250 bucks you haven't lost a lot if it gets damaged. Also I would highly recommend a shorter length like the Sigma 12-24 to capture landscapes and architecture.


Here is a good overview in last month's issue of shutterbug of the 12-24
http://www.shutterbug.com/features/0205thoughts/

There is a really good post over on http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/143791 featuring the 20D and the 18-125.

Hope this helps
davedeal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2005, 7:44 AM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

DBerman wrote:
Quote:
what small lense would you recommend besides the 17-40 L? In order to try and save a few $ after buying the 20D and the 28-135 USM IS I would like to spend less on the wider angle lense.

Do you think the Sigma 18-125 is a good alternative instead of buying both Canon lenses?
IMO it is:
1. One lens vs two (ie more conveniet & quicker to shoot)!
2. I hate to plot MTF curves again (but it exceeds both the 17-40L and 28-135 IS at least in sharpness)
3. Cost significantly less (a drop in the bucket vs the other two)!!! :G




davedeal wrote:
Quote:
From what I have read a good bang for the buck is, and what I will probably wind up with if the Tamron 18-200 turns out to be a flop is

Sigma 12-24 ~500
Sigma 18-125 ~250
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ~700

Granted these are not "L" quality but from all the user accounts I have read this is a good "budget" mix. Especially for a noob like myself.
The only suggestion I would make here is subtitute the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX for the 18-125 (if you don't need the overlap):

1. All the Sigma lenses will then be EX series - Their Professional line which are of higher quality
2. You gain constant f/2.8 for at least two lenses
3. Theses are all full-frame lenses
4. It only costs ~$100 more than the 18-125, but is three time cheaper than the EF 24-70 f/2.8L!
FYI - http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/2470

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2005, 5:04 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 14
Default

Thank you for your advice. It seems as though there are two camps of thought. One that sticks with Canon or aspires to carrying their glass and the other who are satisfied with the other brands.

Do you think that Sigma is superior to the other "non-Canon" brands? The other thing that makes me curious is that there seems to be from posts here and other sites like fredmiranda.com a higher "failure" rate among non-Canon lenses. My fear is that being a newbie to dSLR's I might not recognize anything short of a major defect in a lense
DBerman 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 5:55 AM.