View Full Version : Lens upgrade (Canon)
Given the upcoming hols, I'm considering options regarding my 18-55 kit lens and whether it's worth looking at an upgrade. Given my (lack of) serious camera use, I'm reluctant to throw masses of money at the problem however.
My local camera shop suggested the EF-S 17-85 F/4.0-5.6, at £300-ish, which satisfies my needs (mainly giving me a little more wide angle and closing the 55-70 'hole'). I'm not sure what the IQ is like on this lens.
However, I'm rather liking the reviews of the new 15-85. I'd be prepared to hire one (£100), or maybe even buy one out there, use it, bring it home, and then decide which one to sell (obviously I don't need both).
Or of course I could just take the 18-55 and be done with it. :)
PS - I did consider hiring a 100-400 to get 'that' shot - but it's far from certain I'll pull it iff, and I've spent enough on that particular dream already. :)
Matblack
03-02-2010, 00:44
Sigma 17-70
I'm actually considering selling mine, its a cracking lens but I'd like to get some L glass or the 17-55 IS to prepare for taking thousands of photos in the summer.
MB
I knew you had a Sigma something but couldn't remember the details. :)
Haven't found a review yet (but haven't really been looking). Seems like a good lens though and hits the range I want. Loses out on IS but being faster in the first place will compensate - as will improving my camera holding technique. :)
PS - I've already decided L glass isn't for me. Just can't justify it (lottery win excepted). :)
Only thing with the 17-85mm when i had the Lens was i found it soft focus wise and the shots didn't come out as crisp as they should have. Might just have been my Lens but have heard other people saying the same thing might have changed since then though with newer builds.
I knew you had a Sigma something but couldn't remember the details. :)
Haven't found a review yet (but haven't really been looking). Seems like a good lens though and hits the range I want. Loses out on IS but being faster in the first place will compensate - as will improving my camera holding technique. :)
PS - I've already decided L glass isn't for me. Just can't justify it (lottery win excepted). :)
Just buy L glass second hand.
I've been scanning TP, on both counts, so I've heard other reports of soft focus on the 17-85. Think I'll skip that one given that I'm trying to keep costs under control and I've got enough problems getting things in focus already. :)
I'll certainly keep an eye on the second-hand market (including L glass), but the price gap being as wide as it is I'm not expecting much. :)
So, looking like the Sigma or hiring a 15-85 (need to get in touch with Lensesforhire).
Davey_Pitch
04-02-2010, 11:52
Is the only reason you're upgrading to close that 55-70mm gap you mentioned? The only reason I'm asking is that I found my 18-55mm IS lens to be very sharp, and even though the IQ on the Sigma is excellent from what I've seen, it didn't offer enough improvement to justify the cost of the upgrade. I found my 18-55mm plus the 55-250mm IS offered a great combination of quality, length, and affordability, though I don't know what lenses you have (I think you have the 70-300mm, which from what I've seen isn't quite as good as the 55-250mm IQ wise, though you do get the extra length).
IQ wise I think both the 55-250 and the 70-300 are pretty good. My personal view is the 70-300 is better built, but maybe the 55-250 does edge it in IQ (would be nice to find a side-by-side comparison). I got the 70-300 for the extra reach (which I needed when I got it and I'll need again this time). Ironically I've found I could have done with the 55-250 at the shorter end, but what's done is done and I'm not for changing it. :)
I'll admit I don't like 'the gap' and that does motivate me, but it would also be nice to have a better walkabout lens. I've found that when I do take the camera out, I more often than not just take one lens, and I've made the mistake of just taking the 70-300 before. :)
Abandoned the lens idea for now (I may still hire one, but I won't be buying).
However, I'm considering an HD camcorder instead (shame the 450D doesn't 'do' video as that would have solved the problem). The issue I'm having is whether to risk getting an NTSC one while I'm over there (they can be as much as 1/3rd cheaper than the identical PAL version - mostly due to import duty and VAT).
PS - I've already got a mini-DV camcorder, but I just never play the tapes back. I'd be surprised if the ones I've taken in the past even do play back without snapping now. I'm going all solid-state from now on.
Canon just bringing out a camera in the shape of the 550D soon which has a HD video option now.
The 500D does too, I'm pretty sure.
Yes it does, but it was new and expensive when I got into the market. Had to make my move when I did as I needed the camera. In general, I'd much prefer one device to two. In this case however I was considering the option of using both at the same time (I need to do some experimenting today to see if that's an option).
Edit - and with that - sleeping on my crazy ideas and bouncing the off you guys proves to be my saviour again. Thanks.
I'll find the current camcorder before doing anything. I'm not sure it'll be up to the job, but if it is, then that would be the sensible option to try first before spending any money at all. What camera work I do tends to be mostly stills, so spending money on a camcorder would seem like an idea best avoided if there's another option. Of course, that money can go towards a future body upgrade if I decide it's worth doing.
Tysonator
15-02-2010, 23:49
I have the Sigma 17-70 and it is a cracking lens with sharp images. There is a new IS version which is of course will cost more than the non IS version. I am very tempted to sell my 17-70 and buy the IS version.
Some of the consumer Canon lens I have read that the IQ is some soft at both ends the focal range !
I am currently saving my money for the EOS 7D and then a L lens 100-400 IS HSM. The other big lens that has taken my fancy is the Sigma 120-400. Which looks like a beast and is a big size lens. The big pulling point it has 98% IQ of the Canon L 100-400 and just under half the price ! !
Both the EOS 450D and 550D shoot HD video
The 450D does not shoot HD video. The 500D, 550D, and 50D do (not sure about the 40D).
Anyway, I've got a bit of a cunning plan coming on. Haven't decided whether or not to try it (it's a tad naughty - but not in an illegal way).
Who said the 450 did? *confused* the 40 doesn't support video at all.
Tysonator did. :)
I couldn't remember whether the 40D does or doesn't, so thanks for confirming that.
Not that I intend to be buying for at least the time being. :)
So he did. Forgive me, I've got lurgi. ;D
Tysonator
24-02-2010, 22:57
I meant the 500D & 550D shoot video, sorry for the confusion
Sigma 17-70
I'm actually considering selling mine, its a cracking lens but I'd like to get some L glass or the 17-55 IS
Guess what I've just bought :)
I had the 17-70 to start with as my first walkabout lens as I bought my original 400D as a body only.
I "upgraded" to a Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 late last year but was never very happy with it as, whilst it was very sharp at f/5.6, it was very soft at f/2.8 which sort of defeated the whole purpose really. I found myself avoiding using it at all and wished I hadn't sold the 17-70.
Then last week a deal popped up on a 17-55 IS that I just couldn't refuse (£500) so I did the deal and am now much happier :)
As for the OP's question, the 15-85 is getting very good reviews and is significantly better than the 17-85 but obviously costs more. The 17-85 is not "crap" by any means and can be found used for around £200 these days but if you can stretch to the 15-85, I'd say do so.
Failing that, the Sigma 17-70 is still a storming lens although you'll lose the IS and USM of the Canon 15-85. There is a new 17-70 with Sigma's OS & HSM but the few reviews I've seen so far have been fairly average tbh and not the glowing reports the original got.
Funny you should mention the 15-85. I've got one right now (courtesy LensesForHire/StewartR). While I'm not up to a full-on review, it has a reassuring weight to it and seems very well built (with no significant play at all - unlike my 18-55 IS and 70-300 IS). It's also incredibly quiet in operation. Guess the 18-55 stays at home then. :)
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.