Canon D-SLR Lens Review - Page 2

Tysonator · 26-08-2007, 21:11

I must say the Sigma 17-70 is a good lens, it is so much better made than the standard issue Canon. At the time of purchase on the 400D I could afford to get the body, then go a buy a decent lens, hence why I ended up with the 18-55mm.
I see the light now, as it were on the aperture size, the sigma goes now to £2.8 which I think is quite good !

Mondo · 27-08-2007, 01:49

i have the 18-55 too, on a crop body that's the most useful range. the sigma you have does get good reviews but i'd wish it is a constant aperture. that however is more difficult to make thus constant aperture lenses are more expensive.

lostkat · 27-08-2007, 09:40

I bought a Tamron SP AF 17-35/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF) to replace the kit lens for my 30D, and it's great. I really wanted the 17-40L, but just couldn't stretch that far.

The only lens I really want or need is a decent telephoto. I keep pondering over whether the non-IS Canon 70-300 would be bearable, but I think I'd just get frustrated with it since my other lenses are much better quality. I might have to just bite the bullet and save up for a 70-200L... although my dream lens is the 100-400L. Some old guy I was standing next to at Farnborough '06 lent me his, and I got some fantastic shots.

Toby · 27-08-2007, 10:52

Guy at work has the 100-400L and says he's in love with it.

Tysonator · 27-08-2007, 11:25

I wish I could afford the 100-400 canon. I think I will have to settle for the Canon 70-300 IS.

petemc · 27-08-2007, 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vertigo1

Guy at work has the 100-400L and says he's in love with it.

I've got one and I need to sell it to buy a 70-200 f/2.8. I just can't sell it though! I'd miss it too much.

Tysonator · 03-09-2007, 22:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitten_caboodle

I've just found a little store in SF that has the 70-300 with image stabiliser for $399 and I was tempted. However I just bought a 55-200 which I'm enjoying playing with - and I want to get used to using to its full advantage before going for the further range.

Is that the Canon 70-300 USM IS lens ? :undecided:

Toby · 03-09-2007, 23:29

How much to buy and ship it over?

Toby · 04-09-2007, 13:44

I'm currently drooling over the 70-200 f/4.0L IS but the price is scary - find out how much they go for over there if you get a chance

Tysonator · 04-09-2007, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitten_caboodle

I've just found a little store in SF that has the 70-300 with image stabiliser for $399 and I was tempted. However I just bought a 55-200 which I'm enjoying playing with - and I want to get used to using to its full advantage before going for the further range.

I have a pal who is off to Chicago for 10 days, so he has promise to get me the said lens if he sees it.

What shop is the $399 lens in ! ?
many thanks

26-08-2007, 21:11	#11
Tysonator Vodka Martini Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: ESSEX Posts: 874	I must say the Sigma 17-70 is a good lens, it is so much better made than the standard issue Canon. At the time of purchase on the 400D I could afford to get the body, then go a buy a decent lens, hence why I ended up with the 18-55mm. I see the light now, as it were on the aperture size, the sigma goes now to £2.8 which I think is quite good ! __________________ Will think of some witty to say, well when I think of it

27-08-2007, 01:49	#12
Mondo Absinthe Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2,174	i have the 18-55 too, on a crop body that's the most useful range. the sigma you have does get good reviews but i'd wish it is a constant aperture. that however is more difficult to make thus constant aperture lenses are more expensive. __________________ My Website / MSN / Email / Flickr / Blog

27-08-2007, 09:40	#13
lostkat Good Cat Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,550	I bought a Tamron SP AF 17-35/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF) to replace the kit lens for my 30D, and it's great. I really wanted the 17-40L, but just couldn't stretch that far. The only lens I really want or need is a decent telephoto. I keep pondering over whether the non-IS Canon 70-300 would be bearable, but I think I'd just get frustrated with it since my other lenses are much better quality. I might have to just bite the bullet and save up for a 70-200L... although my dream lens is the 100-400L. Some old guy I was standing next to at Farnborough '06 lent me his, and I got some fantastic shots. __________________ Oooooh Cecil, what have you done?

27-08-2007, 10:52	#14
Toby Absinthe Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,023	Guy at work has the 100-400L and says he's in love with it. __________________

27-08-2007, 11:25	#15
Tysonator Vodka Martini Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: ESSEX Posts: 874	I wish I could afford the 100-400 canon. I think I will have to settle for the Canon 70-300 IS. __________________ Will think of some witty to say, well when I think of it

03-09-2007, 23:29	#18
Toby Absinthe Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,023	How much to buy and ship it over? __________________

04-09-2007, 13:44	#19
Toby Absinthe Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,023	I'm currently drooling over the 70-200 f/4.0L IS but the price is scary - find out how much they go for over there if you get a chance __________________