Hi all,
I have been following this website for many years now and have found it wealth of information that has helped me progress in photography and make the right decisions as for what kit to spend my money on.
One thing I cannot get my head around however is which standard lens to buy for my 60D considering I own a
Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM (not tested yet by Klaus, but I am available to send it),
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro (bought for my previous camera, 350D, and strangely, it seems sharper than the newer EFS 18-55)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L
Canon EF 50mm 1.8
Money, as always, plays a role but can be overcome. The lenses I have shortlisted based on FZ reviews are, in order:
1) Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG macro. It is the only "Highly recommended" lens in this range for Canon, very affordable, but no IS and tested on an old camera, is it still good by todays standard? How important is IS on a standard zoom lens. The lens is not very wide, but I have the 10-20mm for that.(€420)
2) Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2,8 USM IS. Twice the price of the Sigma, but allround good review, also 4 stars however, big plus it has IS, minus for me is the range. (€800)
3) Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS. Good price, good quality, IS, minus is the limited range.(€580).
I am an estate agent in Italy, so a lot of my pictures are indoor pictures for which I use the 10-20mm. In outdoor situations I find the EFS-18-55 adequate but lacking in definition and sharpness compared to my other lenses.
There must be others who have thought this one over and made a decision for one of these - or other - lenses.
I would appreciate any comments and tips.
Attached is a recent picture taken in the town where I live (Tropea, Italy) with my EOS 60D and the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II at f/8.
Dennis.
The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS I would favor over the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS, because of the price difference, and build. The 50-55mm range is such a small difference... The Canon does not have its lens hood standard, so add that to its price. Optically both are very close (and good).
The Sigma 24-70mm obviously misses wide angle and ads tele photo, what you prefer is your personal choice. 24mm of course is not overly wide for outside, but you still have that 10-20mm anyway.
You say the Sigma 17-70mm is better than the 18-55 (which it should be, not strange). You mention the 18-55 is not totally upto the job, too. So... in which way does the 17-70mm come up short? Why can't it fill the role of the lenses you mentioned above?
The 3 lenses you listed are f2.8, but f2.8 does not seem to be a real requirement?
Besides the 17-70 Sigma you have, there is the Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM, which fills the focal length range you look for generously and which has quite good optics too (albeit far from f2.8).
Another route you could go is primes. For instance Canon EF 24mm f2.8 + EF 35mm f2 + Canon EF 60mm f2.8 USM Macro. Will be a bit more expensive, though.
For me, I would go for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM for standard zoom, as I value its f2.8 possibility and the build quality of the Canon 17-55 is a bit problematic.
Thank you, Brightcolors, for reading my post and taking time to answer it.
You have given me food for thought, my old Sigma 17-70 does not have IS and has a lot of vignetting so I would like to upgrade. 24-70 does seem a nice range, considering I have a separate wide angle, and the 15-85 lens seems nice and has the perfect zoom range so I can leave some lenses home, but ultimately the FZ review puts me off.
The 2.8 requirement is for indoor portraits, we are expecting a baby and I hope to avoid blasting flashes in her face as a welcome ... ;-).
What are your thoughts on the importance of image stabilization in the 24-70 mm range?
My choice would be Sigma 24-70 if I don't give a large importance to IS, or Sigma 17-50 because it has IS.
[quote name='donstenk' timestamp='1326640472' post='14881']
Thank you, Brightcolors, for reading my post and taking time to answer it.
You have given me food for thought, my old Sigma 17-70 does not have IS and has a lot of vignetting so I would like to upgrade. 24-70 does seem a nice range, considering I have a separate wide angle, and the 15-85 lens seems nice and has the perfect zoom range so I can leave some lenses home, but ultimately the FZ review puts me off.
The 2.8 requirement is for indoor portraits, we are expecting a baby and I hope to avoid blasting flashes in her face as a welcome ... ;-).
What are your thoughts on the importance of image stabilization in the 24-70 mm range?
My choice would be Sigma 24-70 if I don't give a large importance to IS, or Sigma 17-50 because it has IS.
[/quote]
The Sigma 17-70mm has no IS, true. Neither has the 24-70mm. So, if that is a downside for you with the lens you have, you basically answered the importance question?
The 15-85mm is better than the PZ review makes you think. However, it too will vignet wide open, just like the Sigma you have. And it certainly does not open very wide either. IS can't solve everything (one does need to keep the exposure time up with moving subjects).
The shorter the focal length, the less important IS is. So.. for 70mm more important than for 24mm.
Since the Sigma 17-50 has OS, if you were me I would go for that lens. It has a HSM motor too, and the 24-70mm macro does not. Its optically better follow up does have HSM, but is more expensive.
Thank you brightcolors,
I can get a Sigma 17-50 EX for around 570 euro, and I might just do that.
donstenk
Your Sigma 17-70 is one of the best trans standard lenses for APC cameras there is! Why change it? You have a perfectly good set up with the Sigma 10-20, Sig 17-70, Canon 70-200 f4. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> Whatever you buy is only going to be marginally better, if at all. You have a good camera and set of lenses, so don't go for a wild goose chase!! Save the money for something nice for your baby (or a flash) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Sell the 18-55, which is less good than your Sig 17-70! By the way, you don't need stab in that focal range, but if you want to spend money on stab, do it when you replace you 70-200.
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1326737030' post='14920']
Your Sigma 17-70 is one of the best trans standard lenses for APC cameras there is! Why change it? You have a perfectly good set up with the Sigma 10-20, Sig 17-70, Canon 70-200 f4. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> Whatever you buy is only going to be marginally better, if at all. You have a good camera and set of lenses, so don't go for a wild goose chase!! Save the money for something nice for your baby (or a flash) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Sell the 18-55, which is less good than your Sig 17-70! By the way, you don't need stab in that focal range, but if you want to spend money on stab, do it when you replace you 70-200.
[/quote]
Why would anyone want to replace that lovely 70-200mm.... odd idea. Replacing the Sihma for f2.8 makes a little more sense.,..
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1326737030' post='14920']
do it when you replace you 70-200.
[/quote]
Thanks for your input, but I love my shiny white 70-200 L lens!
I will put the Sigma 17-70 onto the 60D (it now is on my old 350D) and see how I fare, but I am tempted to a faster lens that vignettes less.
Attached is a great picture of my dog and her sister on the beach in Southern Italy in November, taken with the 60D and the Sigma 17-70 at 17mm, ISO125, f/11 1/500. It is the orginal camera produce JPG that has not been corrected in Aperture. It would have been better with a newer generation of lens, I am not sure if IS would have helped me getting a sharper picture.
Dennis.
Great, I love the shot <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Not much to correct there IMO except some tilt.
And it's a good example that a photo primarily works because of a good subject, not because of a stellar lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
-- Markus
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1326800470' post='14951']
Great, I love the shot <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Not much to correct there IMO except some tilt.
And it's a good example that a photo primarily works because of a good subject, not because of a stellar lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
-- Markus
[/quote]
Thank you, and I agree almost fully. The corrections I applied before printing it on a massive canvas, were straitening and de-vignetting, something this lens suffers a lot from.