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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 21, 2006, 3:09 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Alpineman, is the extra 6mm (18mm as opposed to 24mm), worth not being able to get to 70mm, as you only get to 50mm?
pjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2006, 3:28 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Sigma 18-125 F3.5 - 5.6 DC gives quite a lot more focal length range for a walkaround lens at a pretty nifty price of around £180.
I prefer Sigma 18-200 for an additional $100.
Adiseshanaik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2006, 9:05 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

For me, it's worth it...I would rather get wider shots than longer. My main subjects are people & landscape. When taking people photos in a small room, a wider angle lens fits the ticket better. And for landscape, I get more overall coverage of the entire scene.

Although there's only a difference of 6mm in 18vs24, the difference in scene coverage in 18vs24 is greater than 50vs70. To see what I mean, have a look here:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/ht...al_length.html

AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2006, 3:31 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 60
Default

I see Sigma do a 24-135mm f2.8-4.5. Would this be a good walkabout lens for my 350D? It seems to be in the ranges that I want, and stops down to 2.8 at the wide end (which I would generally use indoors for non flash photos). I can't find any reviews of this lens so perhaps someone can point me in the right direction or give me the benefit of their experience with this lens. Thanks.
pjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2006, 5:13 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

pjackson wrote:
Quote:
I see Sigma do a 24-135mm f2.8-4.5. Would this be a good walkabout lens for my 350D? It seems to be in the ranges that I want, and stops down to 2.8 at the wide end (which I would generally use indoors for non flash photos). I can't find any reviews of this lens so perhaps someone can point me in the right direction or give me the benefit of their experience with this lens. Thanks.
See here: http://www.popphoto.com/assets/downl...2004165542.pdf

Since you already have a 75-300mm, I would go with one of the lens recommended earlier instead:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...2845/index.htm


-> The difference between 70/135 is not that great (plus you can crop), but the difference between 24mm and 17/18 makes a bigger impact on the resulting images!
http://www.zknives.com/dp/dofcalc.shtml
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2006, 5:37 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7
Default

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I've just ordered a 30D, and with it I've ordered a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5, which I've read good reviews of. Can't wait to get clicking! This lens gives you high optical quality, good range, and decent build quality for a reasonable price.
naylor83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2006, 5:36 AM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Is the 17-70 good enough for indoor non-flash photography, as I don't like using a flash where possible?
pjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2006, 11:34 AM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

pjackson wrote:
Quote:
Is the 17-70 good enough for indoor non-flash photography, as I don't like using a flash where possible?
I wouldn't rely on it for that. Much depends on what your subject is and whether or not there's movement. If there's possible movement, then you may need something 'faster' than 2.8. If there's no movement then it's a matter of keeping the camera still for the longer shutter speed you'll need (i.e. it may require 1/15 to capture the shot) - which is why so many people like IS lenses.

But, people who do a lot of indoor no-flash work will typically work with faster prime lenses.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2006, 6:57 AM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Yes,I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 prime for a lot of situations indoors, but a lot of the time you can't get far enough back to get everything in frame, that's mainly why I was after the convienience of a small zoom. I have read a review on the Sigma 17-70 now and it does highlight the exteme distortions at 17mm. Has this been a problem for people with this lens as I would like to do landscapes too?
pjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2006, 10:56 AM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

pjackson wrote:
Quote:
... and it does highlight the exteme distortions at 17mm. Has this been a problem for people with this lens as I would like to do landscapes too?
Distortion is rarely a problem with landscape (except in architecture), the problem is always most noticeable with people since it distorts their proportion - But notice that all WA have this problem in general especially up close... and not unique to this particular lens only.

"... 17mm at wide-open aperture where the extreme border performance is soft and vignetting is quite pronounced (but still not worse than the direct competition)"
NHL 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 2:17 PM.