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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 14, 2006, 12:40 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 64
Default

How are these sigma lenses and what's the difference between the two 17-35mm.

18-50 F2.8 ex dc

15-30 f3.5-4.5 ex asph dg df

17-35 f2.8-4.0 ex asph hsm

17-35 f2.8-4.0 ex dg asph hsm

Thinking of getting one of these, which one do you guys recommend. Or is there some other lens you like better?

Thanks, Bill
picturethis62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 14, 2006, 2:52 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 166
Default

Bill

The big difference between the two 17-35mm lenses is the DG. The DG models are the newest ones, with updated coatings to help digital cameras.

My big questions for you are what will you be using the lens for and on what camera?

If you are going to use this lens as a walkaround, everything use lens, then I would recommend the 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC. This gives you a F2.8 through the whole zoom range, longest zoom, and good wide. This lens will only work on the DRebel, Rebel XT, 10D, 30Dand 20D. If you are using a 5D or other Canon SLR you will get some vingetting.

Bill
Speedie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2006, 6:13 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default


I tend to agree with Speedie as well on the 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC for cropped dSLR, but bear in mind that the 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 EX is an excellent lens and has been proven around for quite sometime. It was a workhorse and still is for some my Nikon friends...

I have the 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 EX instead because I prefer the HSM AF mechanism over the non-HSM 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 EX and took some compromise in sharpness, but both of theses lenses are full-frame meaning it will go on other Canon cameras as well (unlike the DC series) - Speaking of compromise in sharpness: :-)





NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2006, 1:25 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 64
Default

Thanks guys,

I have the 350d. Walk around lens is exactlywhat I'm looking for. I want something that will give me the wide and some range. As much asI love the canon lenses (especially the 70-200 2.8 IS, my dream lens) I just can't afford them right now. I'm trying to get something in the middle (lens) and then I will eventually get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 ex lens that seems very much liked by the other guys here. I like to shoot almost everything, from bugs, landscape, people, to my favorite, sports. I can't afford four five lenses right now, so I'm looking into getting two that will cover most. Probably shooting wildlife is my least favorite so I don't think I need a biggie, meaning 500-600mm. Anyway, your recommendations is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again,

Bill
picturethis62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2006, 8:15 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
bigboyhf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 165
Default

The Canon 17-85 is a really good walk around lens. It is slightly more expensive I think, but the the slight extra range on the tele side, as well as the IS make is more versatile. Though you do sacrifice on the aperture compared to those lenses since it is 4 - 5.6 rather than 2.8 - 4. The IS helps with that for much, but not at stopping action as in sports. But then you really will be looking at a the 70 -200 2.8 for that!

H
bigboyhf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 6:22 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

It also depends on what effect you're after... :idea:

Some folks are looking for defocus in their backgrounds which can only be achieved by larger aperture lens - This all depend on how folks want their subject(s) to stand out since the depht-of-field at 1m for an f/5.6 lens is twice that of an f/2.8 at the 50mm setting for example. Although this is not much, the outcome of the overall image makes quite a difference to some folks!

Since you'll be getting the 70-200 f/2.8 EX anyway then the range is not an issue, I'll go with an f/2.8 lens anyday:
-> One can always overcomes shake (or IS) by resting a camera down, but an f/5.6 lens can never open up to f/2.8...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 1:26 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 64
Default

Sometimes I don't even know what kind of effects I'm after:O. I guess just a nice overall picture. There are times when you guys post a picture (like the one you posted here NHL) and you just go, "Wow, that's nice, that's what I'm talkin about". Just taking the picture and being surprised by the outcome is fun too. When I was shooting film I'd be happy with a couple nice shoots after having them developed at Costco. Now I'm a little more serious about my work and do try to act like I know what I'm doing. That's my main reason in trying to find a few lenses that work in different situations. When I didn't know one from the other, for example,I bought this lens years ago for my Elan, a Sigma 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 for shooting sports, hockey games, indoor, and hand held. I look at that now and laugh. So I have learned. What kind of results am I looking for? Ones that will make me go "Wow" I took that, dam right I did, and I planned that too.:-)

Thanks again for your help

Bill
picturethis62 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 10:21 PM.