Sick of 18-55 kit..

Im looking for a lens in this range. Getting into a little landscape work, this kit lens isnt cutting the mustard. I do alot of hiking, so i want something durable, and isnt going to burn a hole. What do you think about the sigma 17-70? Im not worried about light, i travel with a tripod. THANKS...if there is anything new coming out, let me know...im in no rush! p.s. xti body

Just save up and get the 17-55 F2.8 IS... You will not be disappointed..

I've been extremely happy with the Canon 17-55mm f2.8. It's worlds better than the kit lens. It's not cheap though at around $950. In your case sense you are doing mostly landscapes and tripod work then you probably wouldnt benefit from the IS though.

Me too.. It rocks!..

$1000 recommendation from his $400 suggestion...?

Zeus87 wrote in post #4119815
i want something . . . [that] isnt going to burn a hole.

Sigma 17-70 is a great versatile choice, if you're looking for some constant 2.8 action, I will highly recommend the Sigma 18-50 2.8, less on the long end. Just figure out which is more important to you, that 20mm, or 2.8 on the long end.

Enjoy.

Kit lens isn't bad, especially for landscapes since you'll want to be stopping the lens down to around f/8 anyway. Look around here on the forums for some absolutely stunning landscapes taken by just the kit lens. I wish I never sold my 18-55, we had some good times together.

As for alternatives, I'd go for either a Tamron 17-50 or save up for the most excellent EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (although probably out of your price range). The best landscape lens I've used (taking into account your wish for durability) has to be the 16-35 and 17-40. I currently own the 17-40 and it's spectacular for landscapes.

17-40L baby would be my "budget" choice.

I found the Sigma 17-70 to be quite soft in the corners, and have quite a bit of CA. I now have a Sigma 24-60mm 2.8 and I love it! It may be a bit long for you though. It is $220 new on Amazon right now.

wtaccord wrote in post #4119831
I've been extremely happy with the Canon 17-55mm f2.8. It's worlds better than the kit lens. It's not cheap though at around $950. In your case sense you are doing mostly landscapes and tripod work then you probably wouldnt benefit from the IS though.

sure he would. i do landscapes at about f16 with my 5d which sometimes forces me to jack up the iso or use a bigger aperature.

ed rader

I own a sigma 17-70... Yay

its a very nice lens. Just wish it had a stronger feel to it.

I have the Sigma 17-70mm and the Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 and have used the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. These are all very nice lenses. I use the 17-70 for a walk-around lens all the time -- its fairly sharp and can focus very close making it great for flowers as well as lasndscapes and wide-angle portraits. Though I do find it a bit soft at 17mm, I haven't really noticed any big problems with CA. The Sigma 24-60 and Tamron 17-50 are extremely sharp but a little less versatile. Is use the 24-60 for shots of people, cats, etc. as well as lower light situations but it isn't always wide enough and doesn't focus as close as the 17-70.

I think you'll be happy with any of these lenses. In your shoes, I think I'd pick the Sigma 17-70 just for the all-around versatility. Having moved from a 35mm camera to digital, I would have picked the Sigma 17-70 instead of the kit lens if it had been available at the time.

To the OP, can you specify what about the 18-55 is really limiting you the most?

I ask because the copy of that lens that I owned was at its best on the wide end and stopped down to f/8 or so....kind of how I would expect you are using it to shoot landscapes. Also the 18-55 does have a size weight advantage for hiking over anything else.

I'd just be nervous to spend $1k on somthing like the 17-55 (which is a stunning performer BTW) only to find the gains in what you are doing are incremental.

Right of the top of my head would be the 17-40L for durability reasons and it is very close to the kit lens in terms of range. But good question JeffreyG.

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, and I think that it is much better than the 18-55 kit for general purposes because of the large aperture.

That said, the kit is a very nice landscape lens with tripod and wired remote (the remote makes it pretty easy to use CP even with the rotating front end of the kit). The kit lens is sharp at f8 in the middle part of its range (the kit is certainly acceptable but not great at 18-20 or above 50mm). Many will disagree, but I actually like the kit focal length better than the Tamron (for my uses, the 55 on the kit long end is a bit more useful than the 17 on the Tamron wide end).

The kit is great for hiking; it's light and small. Yeah, it doesn't seem to be durable, but it's expendable.

You will always get $1000 recommendations to budget questions in this forum - its a given!

I agree with the recommendations made regarding the Sigma 17-70mm lens - it is a highly regarded (affordable!!) lens. Sheesh people - the guy is replacing the KIT lens and he is getting recommendations to L's....???