Canon EOS 20D with Sigma AF 17-70mm OR Canon EF 28-135mm IS?

What do you think?

Canon EOS 20D with Sigma AF 17-70mm OR Canon EF 28-135mm IS?

Which combo?

**I leaning towards the sigma b/c of the wide angle ability.....but how does IS factor in? going to be used to "walk around" shooting.

Happy Holidays

Sigma 17-70.

Personally I could never live with 28 to anything as the general purpose lens on a small sensor camera. is the 17-70 the f/2.8-4 lens? If it is then the extra light will more than make up for the lack of IS.

Depends on what you have in the bag already. If your looking to extend the kit, the 28-135 is a fine lens for the $$. If you got a body only and are looking for one good walkaround, then go for the Siggy.

Sigma 17-70

sigma 24-70 f/2.8

I wouldn't go for third party lenses. And I wouldn't choose a 28-135 as my walkaround lens on an APS-C sensor. I have owned both the Canon 28-135 and the Tamron 28-75 and ended up selling them for the focal lengths are not for APS-C sensors. Go get the 17-85 IS. I know several professionals that use it. Ask yourself why you need a f/2.8. What type of photography do you do? Now with the possibility of moving up the ISO you actually own a f/2.8 lens.

sito wrote in post #2408686
.......I wouldn't choose a 28-135 as my walkaround lens on an APS-C sensor. I have owned both the Canon 28-135 .......ended up selling them for the focal lengths are not for APS-C sensors.

I have the 28-135 on a 20D and its focal length for MY INTEDED USE is perfect. Just coz you didn't/could'nt find a use for it does not mean that others won't or can't. The way you framed your response it looks like that the 28-135 is a dud on a APS-C body which its not.

I personally think people are making a big hoopla outta nothing. If you are able to get to the composition you want with the lens/body you have, then its fine for you. If you find it too "restrictive" then go wide if you find it not "getting close enough" then go tele. Its really as simple as that.

gjman wrote in post #2408827
I have the 28-135 on a 20D and its focal length for MY INTEDED USE is perfect. Just coz you didn't/could'nt find a use for it does not mean that others won't or can't. The way you framed your response it looks like that the 28-135 is a dud on a APS-C body which its not.

You are totally right. There is not such thing as a perfect lens for everybody. Every person has to think carefully which is his/her best buys. I just wanted to share my experience. The 28-135 is a great lens and the IS is lovable. But Canon made a "28-135" for digitals, and that is the 17-85. Its IS gets you four stops, but the 28-135 gives you only two. In my case I lost many shots because of having a 44mm glass on its widest extreme.

The only point is that you cannot call the 28-135 on a 20D a "walkaround" lens. You are very limited with a 28-135 if you want to do travel photography, architecture photography, environmental portraits, wide landscapes, etc. If you have a look at the lens catalogues for film cameras, you will not find a single 45-200mm lens. I guess photographers would consider absurd to have this type on lens on their cameras. That's what happened to me after two years shooting 17,000 pictures.

Now in the digital era, and with the APS-C sensors you can do as you want. In fact, with a "analog" glass on a APS-C camera you get just the best part of the glass.

But please, again, don't call it a walkaround.

sito wrote in post #2410093
But please, again, don't call it a walkaround.

Now, I am getting a bit technical here, but "walkaround" lens simply means the preferred lens that you would like to shoot with while walking in your surroundings. For birders, it would probably be a long tele, portrait takers, maybe regular zooms, and possibly uwa for the landscape lovers. A multipurpose workhorse would be more along the lines of what you're trying to tack the term walkaround to.

sito wrote in post #2408686
I wouldn't go for third party lenses.

I used to think that way, too, until I got my first third party lens, which was the Sigma 17-70mm. It's a great lens...

The sigma is the way to go. It feels cheap, light, but produces great shots. The other would not be wide enough.

IS definitely helps, especially at tele ranges, low light static objects, or if you're starting out an your hands aren't as stable in the beginning (I know mine weren't). In fact, it's hard to overstate the benefits of image stabilization as long as you're not shooting any action photography. To that end, I would say the 17-85 is a good buy as a versatile multipurpose first lens. If you already have a kit lens though, like I did, the 28-135 will let you reach things that the other 2 can't while still having the option to go wide when needed. After all, it's a SLR and you're supposed to change lenses as per situation requires. As for the Siggy, the 2.8 is great, but I find it disappears too quick - it's at 3.5 at 25mm already, which takes away a lot of the advantages of its good lowlight handling.

sigma

Personaly for me, the 28-135 IS makes a great walk around lens. This of course is subject to change for for now it's doing a fine job on my 20D body.