Please help me make the right camera choice - Page 6

Mark · 05-07-2009, 23:38

Grabbed a cheapy monopod from Jessops and an aftermarket grip off t'bay. As noted in the RSI thread I'm having a few wrist problems and the 70-300 lens is putting a fair bit of torque on that wrist, so I'm trying to balance it out with the grip and take the load off completely when practical with the monopod. If I find I'm using the monopod I'll replace it with a better version with a quick release, but that can wait for now.

While I'm not planning an immediate upgrade, I would certainly appreciate comments on what would be a good upgrade from the 18-55 IS kit lens. If anything, I'd like a bit more range.

PS - there's a photos thread with no photos in it. I should have that fixed in the next 2-3 weeks, weather permitting.

Davey_Pitch · 06-07-2009, 00:42

The Sigma 17-70 is a good upgrade from the kit lens. The glass is better but you lose out as it has no image stabilisation built in, though you'll be compensating for that somewhat if you're using the monopod for some of your shots. It really depends on how much you're looking to spend though, as you could go for something like the 24-105mm f4 if you were looking to spend a lot of money on it (which I'm guessing you're not, but 2nd hand is always an option there).

Mark · 06-07-2009, 01:38

I'm not planning to go wild, so to speak. I'm definitely into the second hand market now (should've listened to MB and done that with the body as well, but being my first entry into the market I wanted a little peace of mind

)

Sigma 17-70 was the one I knew about thanks to MB and now you.

What prompted this post was the Canon 17-85 IS I spotted on TP. I like IS given my shaky hands - monopod notwithstanding as I got that more for the long lens. Seems that it might be slightly slower than the 17-55 kit I've already got though and I would rather hold out unless it's a ridiculous bargain. Given that it was/is the kit lens for the 40D I'm sure there will be more about if that proves to be the right route.

Matblack · 06-07-2009, 08:36

Third party short to mid zooms blow the Canon offerings away unless you pay a lot of money (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/r...ns-Review.aspx), I'd look at the Sigma and Tamron offerings as the IQ is better then Canons for a similar cost or less. If you can use your camera properly you don't really need IS at these ranges for normal photography although having it does add a lot of you want to get into the artier end of DOF or are doing a lot of low level work.

I may be looking up upgrade at some point in which case I will be moving the 17-70mm on but not for a little while yet.

MB

Mark · 06-07-2009, 11:00

Thanks all, that comparison was the information I was missing and what I needed to convince me to wait it out and consider 3rd party glass if/when the time comes. Money stays in bank account.

06-07-2009, 00:42	#52
Davey_Pitch I iz speshul Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Liverpool Posts: 6,296	The Sigma 17-70 is a good upgrade from the kit lens. The glass is better but you lose out as it has no image stabilisation built in, though you'll be compensating for that somewhat if you're using the monopod for some of your shots. It really depends on how much you're looking to spend though, as you could go for something like the 24-105mm f4 if you were looking to spend a lot of money on it (which I'm guessing you're not, but 2nd hand is always an option there). __________________ Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine as children do. It's not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own lights shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

06-07-2009, 08:36	#54
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	Third party short to mid zooms blow the Canon offerings away unless you pay a lot of money (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/r...ns-Review.aspx), I'd look at the Sigma and Tamron offerings as the IQ is better then Canons for a similar cost or less. If you can use your camera properly you don't really need IS at these ranges for normal photography although having it does add a lot of you want to get into the artier end of DOF or are doing a lot of low level work. I may be looking up upgrade at some point in which case I will be moving the 17-70mm on but not for a little while yet. MB __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-07-2009, 23:38	#51
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Grabbed a cheapy monopod from Jessops and an aftermarket grip off t'bay. As noted in the RSI thread I'm having a few wrist problems and the 70-300 lens is putting a fair bit of torque on that wrist, so I'm trying to balance it out with the grip and take the load off completely when practical with the monopod. If I find I'm using the monopod I'll replace it with a better version with a quick release, but that can wait for now. While I'm not planning an immediate upgrade, I would certainly appreciate comments on what would be a good upgrade from the 18-55 IS kit lens. If anything, I'd like a bit more range. PS - there's a photos thread with no photos in it. I should have that fixed in the next 2-3 weeks, weather permitting.

06-07-2009, 01:38	#53
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	I'm not planning to go wild, so to speak. I'm definitely into the second hand market now (should've listened to MB and done that with the body as well, but being my first entry into the market I wanted a little peace of mind ) Sigma 17-70 was the one I knew about thanks to MB and now you. What prompted this post was the Canon 17-85 IS I spotted on TP. I like IS given my shaky hands - monopod notwithstanding as I got that more for the long lens. Seems that it might be slightly slower than the 17-55 kit I've already got though and I would rather hold out unless it's a ridiculous bargain. Given that it was/is the kit lens for the 40D I'm sure there will be more about if that proves to be the right route.

06-07-2009, 11:00	#55
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Thanks all, that comparison was the information I was missing and what I needed to convince me to wait it out and consider 3rd party glass if/when the time comes. Money stays in bank account.