New Lenses for a newbie

Hello All,

Walking amongst all you giants here i think, so bear with me.

Have only just recently got into photography and have found myself really enjoying it. Usually got to motorsports events and air shows but have found myself taking shots of wildlife and even plants.

Anyway i have a Canon EOS 400D with the bog standard kit lens and have recently bought a Sigma 70-300APO DG Macro as well that i have used at the latest round of the BTCC.
I am looking at a 'walk-around' lens that also performs well close up, to add to my bag and would like your thoughts on the Sigma 17-70 or anything else that you think would fit the bill.
Looking around the £250 ($500) mark or therabouts.

Thanks in advance

Jabba J

I am sure you will get many other suggestions, but if you can wait and save just the same amount again - or try and get a second-hand one - I would highly recommend waiting and getting the Canon 24-105 F4L IS USM - its a superb walkaround lense and very good for close up shots too.

I bought this one in July to cover any options that I might encounter when out, as I have a good selection of other lenses which covers macro or distance, and it has not disappointed me yet. Its incredibly sharp, the colour reproduction you get is wonderful and well worth saving and waiting a bit longer for

Linda

Slightly more than £250 though.

It's not easy to find a good walkaround general purpose lens in that bracket without opting for a more modest range like the various 17-50ish lenses, like the Sigma that you mentioned. If they appeal to you, have a look at their archives. They are pretty much all well reputed in terms of image quality.

Welcome to the forum.

When I first got my XTI, which I believe is the 400D, I had the kit lens and bought the 17-40 F4L. Loved the lens. I bought the 40D and used the 17-40 on it for a few months, and ended up getting the 17-55 2.8IS. The 17-40 is a little more than $500 but you can get a used one for around that price, I sold mine for $550 with a uv filter and the lens was only used for about 13 months. I recomend the 17-40, should compliment your other 70-300, you can also use it on a FF if you ever make the jump up.

Ade H wrote in post #6380318
Slightly more than £250 though.

Yup, thats why I wrote this "save just the same amount again - or try and get a second-hand one" - which obviously means its twice that amount.

I know its a fair amount of money, but going back to when I first started with a DSLR after using film slr, I found out the hard way not to skimp when buying a lense - save for a while longer, get family to give you money for birthdays and Christmas and it doesnt take too long to get that extra bit of money for something well worth saving for. You only end up spending what money you have got and not always being entirely happy with your purchase, you then sell it for way less than you bought it for and lose out financially.

If you have the kit lense (and it really isnt that bad), make do with that a little longer, or if the price really is out of reach, then obviously you have to find the next best alternative.

Linda

hmmmmm, well i think you should stay with canon for now, quality of sigma is a bit hit and miss and you need a good work horse for your walkies.
Do you really want a swap for the kit or are you after something new- my first lens after the kit was a 50mm 1.4 - it opened up a new experience playing with bokeh and depth of view etc....
I have heard positive comments regarding the 28-105mm app it is a good travel lens. Look at the image archive there you can see what lenses are capable of.
If you do buy a lens i would advise you to wait until the rebate scheme kicks in usually in the build up to Christmas, sometimes offers are on L lenses making them that little bit more affordable. Also dont buy from the UK unless you get big discount, all canon lenses come with an international warranty- i have used this website and recommend them http://www.onestop-digital.com …Path=24_26&page​=1&sort=3a

good luck with your purchase what ever you choose.

Treat me like a tourist wrote in post #6380511
hmmmmm, well i think you should stay with canon for now, quality of sigma is a bit hit and miss and you need a good work horse for your walkies.
Do you really want a swap for the kit or are you after something new- my first lens after the kit was a 50mm 1.4 - it opened up a new experience playing with bokeh and depth of view etc....
I have heard positive comments regarding the 28-105mm app it is a good travel lens. Look at the image archive there you can see what lenses are capable of.
If you do buy a lens i would advise you to wait until the rebate scheme kicks in usually in the build up to Christmas, sometimes offers are on L lenses making them that little bit more affordable. Also dont buy from the UK unless you get big discount, all canon lenses come with an international warranty- i have used this website and recommend them http://www.onestop-digital.com …Path=24_26&page​=1&sort=3a

good luck with your purchase what ever you choose.

Did you mean the 24-105 ?

Also, if you buy new, you can get reductions in price if you look around carefully - look at Park Cameras, you often see them advertise "unboxed" which simply means its in a white box rather than the usual Canon box - often at somewhere around £80 or so less than the "boxed" one (what a price to pay for a box with Canon printed all over it lol).

Linda

no i mean the 24-105 its near the bottom of the lens tree but it is well built, much better than the kit lens. You cant beat one stop for price and yes the box is important if you ever come to sell your gear on as you move up on quality. Import is always always the better option in the UK.

Treat me like a tourist wrote in post #6381147
no i mean the 24-105 its near the bottom of the lens tree but it is well built, much better than the kit lens. You cant beat one stop for price and yes the box is important if you ever come to sell your gear on as you move up on quality. Import is always always the better option in the UK.

I think I'm getting confused, as the 24-105 1:4 L IS USM is hardly 'near the bottom of the lens tree' whatever that means. Perhaps I can help clarify some of the possible lenses in this range (from Canon)

EF 28-105 1:4-5.6 = Total and utter crap kit lens from the 1990's.

EF 28-105 1:3.5-4.5 = A reasonably good mid-level zoom lens also from the 1990's. Much nicer than the slightly slower one above.

EF 24-105 1:4 L IS USM - Pricy high quality zoom lens. Maybe at the lower end of the 'L' lenses due to the f/4 aperture but a great performer. Also way more money than the OP has to spend.

Now, with that cleared up, I think the OP should really first think about the focal lenght range. For most people I recommend against any of the above lenses for general walkabout use on 1.6X bodies like the 400D. 24mm (and especially 28mm) is just not wide enough on the wide end to replace something like the kit 18-55 lens.

I personally think the OP was headed down the right path looking at the Sigma 17-70, and I suggest also checking into the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Sigma 18-50/2.8 as other options.

i think best comb would be a canon 17-85 is with a bw +4 diopter closeup lens(inexpensive and nice) which seems fit your budget and balance your body well
it's sharp @f5.6-f8 apertures for all fl's but 3stop 'is' will mostly compensate that.
note:canon generally has the advantage of fast, accurate and silent autofocus mechanism over 3rdparty ones

i personally think you had it right before asking for advice...the 17-70 looks to be a good lens, and it is a macro lens as well so it'll give you the close-up focusing you're looking for...

JeffreyG wrote in post #6381347
I personally think the OP was headed down the right path looking at the Sigma 17-70, and I suggest also checking into the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Sigma 18-50/2.8 as other options.

My view too.
I had a less than happy experience with my 17-70. I ended up being much more content with the 18-55 IS. The "macro" performances of the two lenses are comparable, and the 18-55 has IS.

If I were staying with APS-C, I might look at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 on the way to a 17-55/2.8 IS, but I wouldn't consider any other lenses in this range. There is the 17-85 IS, but I just can't warm to it for some reason, and there are other Sigma options, like the 18-50, but I'm not a Sigma fan.

So - in summary - no real recommendation, just another perspective offered.

Cheers JeffreyG, i shall have a look at those two you suggested.

I would like to have the 24-105, but i would rather get the 17-70 and become a more proficient photographer before i move onto the big kit and a full frame slr.

Its not nice, but in todays volatile climate financial climate and with everything costing more, it sadly comes down to cost.

But not to take it away from the sigma, from what i have read on potn and elksewhere the vast majority of people had nothing but praise for it.

Does anyone have any pics or links to sites that make use of the 17-70 ?

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=186589

From the archives that I mentioned previously.

The 17-70 is a very nice lens. I also like (more) the Tamron 17-50.