Need help Please

[Cap'nFred]

Hi,
I am new to all of this and have a question about the Sigma Lense and I am not really sure where to posts this question. Hopefully, I can get an answer to this question on this forum. I have the EOS 350D with the EF-S 18-55 kit lense. I would like to know if anyone here has the Sigma AF DC 18-50/2.8 EX for the Canon EOS Digital SLRS and how it compares to the EF-S 18-55. Is it worth buying this lense or should I look into buying the Sigma AF 24-60/ 2.8 EX DG IF or the Sigma AF 15-30/ f3.5-4-5 EX Aspherical DG F. Image sharpness is really important to me because I am particularly interested in taking pictures of my new granddaughter and also taking pictures of my charter fishing clients with their catches. Most of these boat-pictures will be taken from no more than 10-12 feet away. Thanks in advance for your input. Capt. Fred

[condyk]

Welcome shipmate ...

Two questions: why just Sigma lenses in your list? What is your budget?

That will help people point you in the right direction.

[Cap'nFred]

Hi, Thanks for your reply. I am sort of limited to around $400 for a single lense purchase. I will probably buy 2 separate lenses ($800 budget) within the next couple of weeks. I mentioned about taking pictures on the boat and taking pictures of my grandaughter but I also would like to use the lense as a general purpose walk around lense. Hope this gives some indication of what my needs are. Capt. Fred

[Bob_A]

The Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di is in your price range at $359.95 after a $30 rebate (B&H Photo). It's a good choice for a general purpose "walk-around" lens, but if you need something wider it may not suit you.

f2.8 allows you to reduce depth of field and also give you the ability to shoot in lower light situations without a flash.

[Nightcrawler]

Take a look at this guy's site, it reviews some lenses that you might be interested in.

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

[condyk]

The Tamron Bob mentions and the new Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG Macro seem the standard zooms to look for at the moment unless you're spend big money. Fstopjojo did a good test of the latter on this forum a few days back; do a search through and you may be impressed!

I would then invest the balance in a good wide-ish angle. I like the range of the 18-50mm Ex.

Good review sources are:

fredmiranda.com
photozone.de
photographyreview.com

Top one is easiest to navigate and has valuable real world user feedback. Check out your wide options there ... some more recent models may not be represented yet. Some new and older models have very similar names so check you're comparing like for like.

[mdr]

How do these Sigma and Tamron lenses compare to the wider, but slightly slower Canon 24-85mm USM?

[Andy_T]

They should absolutely blow it out of the water.

If you get a good copy, the Sigma 18-50/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 are in the same league as the Canon 24-70/2.8 L, as far as image quality is concerned.

This can certainly not be said about Canon's consumer zoom lenses, of which the 24-85 is an example. A 'nice' lens that you might have to step down to f/8 to get the same sharpness you get from the others at f/4 or even f/2.8 (if you have a good copy).

Of course you can only make the purchasing decision on a lens by lens basis, but a first indication based on price is that a 350$ Sigma or Tamron lens will normally offer a lot more image quality than a 350$ Canon zoom lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[lost]

Capt,

Forgive me if I am telling you something you already know. The 2.8 lenses are designed (and priced accordingly) for 2 purposes. Low light, and Shallow Depth of Field. That does not mean thats all they excell at. I know when we go out on a offshore fishing trip lot of times it is pretty late in the evening when we get back so the 2.8 would benefit you there. Also indoor picture of your grandaughter. If those arent of conscern you could save some money and get a slower lens.

That said I have the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG Macro (thats a mouthfull) and I can tell you the sharpness is awesome. I believe for what you describe the 24 will be more than wide enough. It has turned out to be my most used lens.

As far as wider than 24, you still have the 18-55 and that lens can be really sharp at f8 and above. I don't think the 18-50 2.8 would be as good an upgrade or investment as the 24-70 2.8. It also can be used on Full Frame cameras. Just remember you will need to post process you photos to get the most out of them. (thats with any lens you buy)

Hope it helps.

Lost

P.S. Forgot to mention, The recent reviews have placed the Sigma 24-70 2.8 Macro in the same class as the canon 24-70 2.8L $1,100 lens. Now thats some real value.

[csnudelman]

Capt,

The 2.8 lenses are designed (and priced accordingly) for 2 purposes. Low light, and Shallow Depth of Field.

Hope it helps.

Lost

AND, ease of focusing, manual or AF. In fact, with my 20D the fastest and most acurate AF mode only comes into play with f/2.8 or larger.

[csnudelman]

I would suggest you consider the following in your desision about lens brand. A Canon brand lens is the most compatable lens brand with a Canon brand camera. Often times (and just check around the different forums) Sigma lens need to be "re-chipped" to work on a Canon camera. The next upgrade in the Canon line may cause the current 3rd paryt lenses to not function correctly where the current Canon brand lenses would. The focusing and zooming rings on a Sigma, Tamron, et lens rotates in reverse to the rotation Canon has designed, kinda confusion I would think. If there is a problem and the manufacturer of a 3rd party lens says the problem is not the lens, but must be the camera. And, Canon tells you the camera is fine your problem must be the lens, what 'ya gonna do? I suggest you look at the Canon 24-85mm f/3.5-F/4.5 and be sure to order the lens hood as well.