Lenses Lenses Lenses

Eyelikedurt wrote in post #2141905
get the canon, you know you want to

its lubberly!

mine came at 7am, i was late for work today!!

if the sigma are as good though i may as well save a bit and get some more memory!

That offer should make you salivate, the 17-40 is one heck of a lens. Now, the Sigma is no slouch, here's the same image archive from the forum:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=143064

There's tons of reviews over at fredmiranda, I don't think you can go wrong. Now me being greedy, I want the Sigma to go along with the 17-40 for those moments when I want to go really W-I-D-E...

Dorman wrote in post #2142502
That offer should make you salivate, the 17-40 is one heck of a lens. Now, the Sigma is no slouch, here's the same image archive from the forum:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=143064

There's tons of reviews over at fredmiranda, I don't think you can go wrong. Now me being greedy, I want the Sigma to go along with the 17-40 for those moments when I want to go really W-I-D-E...

I dont know what to go for :S

I want the lens for group shots/ bands ect!

Get both. Ok, that may not be an option, what can I say, I'm very happy with my 17-40 and Condy is a good fella, I'm sure his gear is in great shape and his offer seems like a good one. If 17mm is wide enough than I'd definitely go for it. If not, then 10mm is the way to go.

Btw, I just had a look at your photography portfolio, you have some really nice stuff in your people section (and the other sections as well). Since you're looking for a lens for group shots and bands, people mostly overall I think the 17-40 might be a more useful focal range for you. If you were doing landscapes I'd definitely recommend the UWA. For a bit less money you might even want to look at the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, it'd be a good aperture for your portraits.

Dorman wrote in post #2143071
Btw, I just had a look at your photography portfolio, you have some really nice stuff in your people section (and the other sections as well). Since you're looking for a lens for group shots and bands, people mostly overall I think the 17-40 might be a more useful focal range for you. If you were doing landscapes I'd definitely recommend the UWA. For a bit less money you might even want to look at the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, it'd be a good aperture for your portraits.

Yeh i was wondering wether the 10 is TOO wide for what i want it for. I really dont do any landscapes! not really.

Is the Tamron sharp?

At F/4 the Tamron would indeed be sharp, not many lenses at 2.8 are tack sharp but it'd be great for portraits, group shots, concerts where light is at a premium, and the occassional landscape if you get the inkling to take one. Plus, it even has 10mm more reach.

ooo well i thought id made up my mind now im all cofuzzled again!

I'll throw another wrench in the works: Sigma 17-70

If I were you I'd get either the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 or the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 DC, or the 17-40. I've complicated things enough, I'd better leave it at that!

ah poo... you would go and do that to me!
I shall take a look at the others 2moro i need some sleep now!

Thankyou very much

But i defo dont wanna go for a super wide then?

Probably not. Ultrawides like the 10-22 tend to be specialty lenses. Some folks like them, others think they're way too wide. I like mine.

The 17-40 is technically an ultrawide, but on a crop camera like the 300D/350D, etc. it turns into a nice standard zoom. Quality is superb.

If you want bands, as in bands playing in dingy basement type places then really you need speed and personally I would probably go for a fast prime like a 35mm, ideally with USM or HMS AF, or a 85mm 1.8 if I wanted mainly band protrait style shots or was positioned at the back of the room. 35mm 2.0 is nice in IQ tho' the AF motor isn't USM. Good walkaround for candid shots too. Too long for buildings and large groups.

Even 2.8 will struggle indoors or in darker conditions unless you push the ISO and that is as fast as you'll get in a zoom. On the 300D you can't crank up the ISO too much so even that limits you: too noisy. So, the ultra-wides are not suitable for the kind of work band work you mentioned IMO. They may be too slow and all show distortion and so for people/group shots they are not so good. Looking at what you have then the massive gap seems to be around the standard walkaround range. Seems you might need to clearly state your priorities. 17-40mm L is a great walkaround, but while it has USM AF it is still f4.0 and so on a 300D will be limited indoors/for bands.

condyk wrote in post #2144656
If you want bands, as in bands playing in dingy basement type places then really you need speed and personally I would probably go for a fast prime like a 35mm, ideally with USM or HMS AF, or a 85mm 1.8 if I wanted mainly band protrait style shots or was positioned at the back of the room. 35mm 2.0 is nice in IQ tho' the AF motor isn't USM. Good walkaround for candid shots too. Too long for buildings and large groups.

Even 2.8 will struggle indoors or in darker conditions unless you push the ISO and that is as fast as you'll get in a zoom. On the 300D you can't crank up the ISO too much so even that limits you: too noisy. So, the ultra-wides are not suitable for the kind of work band work you mentioned IMO. They may be too slow and all show distortion and so for people/group shots they are not so good. Looking at what you have then the massive gap seems to be around the standard walkaround range. Seems you might need to clearly state your priorities. 17-40mm L is a great walkaround, but while it has USM AF it is still f4.0 and so on a 300D will be limited indoors/for bands.

No i dont want it for live bands so im ok in that area.

Im thinking this 17-40 will be a good choice then for normal portrait group shots ect!