Deciding Between Lenses, Upgrade from 18-55

[michaelbehlen]

Hey guys, new here. I have been reading a lot of the topics, a lot of good information. I am looking forward to upgrading from my kit lens that came with my Rebel. As of now I have a 50 f/1.8, but I would like a good wide angle/walkaround. I am looking at:
-Sigma 10-20
-Sigma 17-70
-Sigma 20mm f/1.8

Which one would you suggest?
The lower price of the 17/70 is a great thing along with how fast it is. But I also feel that the 10-20 would be really great to shoot with.
I like to shoot Scenery including mountains, countryside, and urban settings. ANy advice would be great. IF you have another lens in mind, feel free to give me your advice, I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance,
-Michael Behlen

[Layston]

Michael,

In my opinion, the 17-70 would be a better "upgrade" to the 18-55. However, if you are planning on keeping the 18-55 (because its resale is low), you'd be better to expand you collection with a super wide for scenery shooting.

There are several super wides, Tamron 11-18, Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24 etc. If you ever plan on getting a full frame camera then you'll have to be very careful which one you get. Personally, I think I'd opt for the 12-24 because (unless I'm mistaken) it's full frame compatible. Not to mention its zoom range brings you up to 24, longer than any other "ultra-wide zoom".

However, if you like the range of the 18-55 I've read plenty of great things about the 17-70. Then there are the slightly more expensive Tamron 17-50, Sigma 18-50 and soon to come Tokina 16-50 all of which are constant f2.8.

That's my $0.02.

[michaelbehlen]

Thanks for the reply. Aee either of the Sigmas compatible with a full frame? (I added the 20mm also).

[red hot sheep]

Layston, the Tokina 12-24 is not for full frame use, but the Sigma 12-24mm is.

[Purelife]

I picked up both the 17-70 and the 10-20 in the last week i love both.
The 17-70 is the general walk about lens and the 10-20 i picked up for landscape style shooting.
Its up to you if you think you are going to do majority of scenery style shooting then i would go with the 10-20.
Both lenes are great.

[michaelbehlen]

Purelife, if you had to chose just one, which one would you choose? Anyone have any first hand exp on the 20 f/1.8? Also are both the sigmas non-compatible with full frames? Thanks for the quick responces guys, I really apprciate it.

[Aidenswarrior]

look into the tamron 17-50 f/2.8. i tested it against the 17-70, and personally i felt the tamron gave better results.

[Layston]

I knew it was a 12-24 that was full frame, apparently I was wrong on which one, bad memory :)

For me, if I were to choose just one, I'd buy the ultra-wide (pick whatever one) and keep the kit lens for my walk around. The kit lens truly is a pretty good little lens for what it is, and unless you plan on selling it to finance the next lens, why buy something that covers the same range you already have when your interests lie in other directions?

On another note, a possible choice for a nice walkaround replacement for the kit is Sigmas 18-125. It gives a lot more reach and is about equal in optical quality to the kit lens from what I've read. The price is also quite enticing....

[Purelife]

Purelife, if you had to chose just one, which one would you choose? Anyone have any first hand exp on the 20 f/1.8? Also are both the sigmas non-compatible with full frames? Thanks for the quick responces guys, I really apprciate it.

Hey I think if i had to just pick one it would be the 17-70 but thats only because i have used it more since i have been doing more around my house style shooting not been out seeking good locations, For the 10-20 as of yet.
From looking at your flickr site i would say 10-20 for you but then again 17-70 also can fit into you needs just as well.

[michaelbehlen]

Alright then, so here comes the delima. I can get a Lens that will fit the Rebel, the 10-20 or I can get the 12-24 for when I upgrade. I wont be upgrading bodies untill Fall o7, exactly a year from now. What I dont understand is why Canon makes EF-s lenses at all, can someplease explain that. Does the EF lenses not fit the sensor exactly right or what? The 12-24 is onyl a 100 more, so I should be getting that. Thanks for the help and answering my questons guys.

[Lani Kai]

The EF-S mount, which allows the rear element to protrude further back, makes building wide-angle lenses easier, more compact, and less expensive. The reason they can do this is because of the smaller sensor size of APS-C cameras. EF-S lenses have a smaller image circle compared to EF lenses so if you were to mount one on a full-frame camera (you can't without making modifications to the lens), you'd get dark corners.