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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 24, 2005, 9:03 AM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2

I'm looking for a new lens toreplacethe 18-55 kit lens that came with my 20D as my walk aorund lens. Most of my photos are candids of my one-year-old, but I also enjoy shooting nature and landscapes. I plan to keep the kit lens to cover wide angle until I can afford to upgrade.

After a lot of reading I have come up with two possibilities, the Canon 28-135 IS and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG. How does the Canon stack up optically to the Sigma? Will IS help offset the large difference in lens speed? Also, how does the build quality compare between the two?

I plan to add either the Canon 70-200 f/4L or the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX in te near future so please factor that into your recommendations. Also, if there is another lens I should strongly consider please let me know.

Cabinetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 24, 2005, 1:41 PM   #2
Senior Member
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339

In a newcomer's POV, it seems kind of weird to try and compare those 2 specific lenses. One thing to is that Canon has a longer zoom range. And I would imagine that's a plus for nature? (You might want to zoom in on a bird, for instance). But that same example makes IS seem useless. IS is only good for static objects, so then the speed in the Sigma lens would be useful here. But then again, you wouldn't really need it if there was ample light outdoors.

It seems like I would go with the Sigma. It's a little bit wider so that might be better for landscapes (24mm vs 28mm), it's faster in terms of aperture, and because you're planning to get the Canon/Sigma 70-200 lens, you're zoom coverage will not be overlapped by two lenses.

But this is all on assumption that they both have the same quality in picture taking :shock:
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2005, 4:21 PM   #3
Super Moderator
Hards80's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046

they are both great lenses, and are optically sound.. i have the 28-135 IS and its on my camera 90% of the time... just some things to consider.. the 28-135 will be smaller and lighter.. it will give you a little more room on the tele end, which can be nice sometimes when you only want to have one lens, especially for candids.. the IS is helpful in lower light situations and just in general to ensure critical sharpness.

that said, the 24-70 sigma is better optically and does give you more speed when you need it.. but be careful of always assuming 2.8 is better, as sometimes it can limit DOF to a point where the nose may be tack sharp, but the hair and ears are soft.. in a perfect world i would own this lens as well..

just some things to consider..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2005, 10:08 PM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221

I'm in a similar position but am looking at the sigma and the 17-85 IS.
The 17-85 will overlap better with any 70-200 than the 28-135 and has the bonus of going much wider than the other two lenses. If you want a better wide lens than the kit one there isn't really any cheap option so 17-24 is a real plus. Unfortunately its 1-2 stops slower than the sigma and costs more ... but then with IS it should be better stopped down a little ... on the other hand the 28-135 is cheaper and better for you now, before you buy your longer lens... could go on a while here.
I'll end up deciding on impulse no matter ow much thought I've put in. At least all three are good lenses.
jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2005, 5:20 AM   #5
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,567

jacks wrote:
If you want a better wide lens than the kit one there isn't really any cheap option so 17-24 is a real plus.
What about the more affordable Sigma 18-125? It's MTF is no different than the 17-85 IS, and has a wider range still equaling the 28-135mm almost in reach...

The only thing you're giving up is IS, which as far as I'm concerned can be easily overcomed by an increase in ISO, which the Canon cameras are equally good at -> The main reasons IMO folks opted for f/2.8 are (1) the better 'bokeh' and (2) the enabling of higher precision AF sensor on the 20D... I don't feel shooting in the dark 5-10% of the time is a good reason for faster lens (or IS)

Remember most daylight shots are around EV-14 :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote

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 5:43 AM.