DSLR Lens

[Nick Parker]

Im about to bite the bullet and finally purchase one. (Canon XT) Now, i've read all over the place that the kit lens is nothing too special. My question is what would be a good all around lens? Im looking for a wide angle/telephoto lens (like a 15-100) thats good but will not "break the bank". Any replies appreciated!

Nick

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I'm not sure but I don't think you are going to find anything that wide that goes that far. 24 or 28mm to about 100mm will be the widest I think. The good ones break the bank too, lol.

I have the 10-22 EF-S which is like $660 or something new. I also have the 17-40L. I've been pondering selling that 17-40L and getting that newer L. I think it is 24mm to 105mm.....that or maybe I was looking at another EF-S type in that range to fill the gap. Anyway, if you want one wide for storms, I think you are going to need another lense to get you to 100mm.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/8454/Digital_Film_SLR_Interchangeable_Lenses_for_Canon.html

There's a good link to see what the options even are for focal length.

 

[Dick McGowan]

You could compromise by going with the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 EX lens. I like this lens a lot and it's designed for the 1.6 crop sensors (Canon Rebel, XT, XTi, 20D, 30D, 40D, etc). At 17 mm, it is really good in low-light at 2.8, by far the cheapest you'll get at that focal length.

The Canon 24-105 f4.0 L that Mike mentioned, is nice too, but 3 times as much. I also own the Sigma 10-20, which is about 100 more, and I love it. I rarely use anything else chasing, unless I'm not very close to the storm. The 10-20 is awesome with the HSM motor, (vs the USM with the 17-70), it's dead on and quick with the autofocus, silent, and takes pictures good enough for me to like. I owned the 17-40L and wasn't happy with it, (bad copy) and returned it to BH with no problem. So for 100 dollars more, and some discount codes I found, I bought two lenses I love for the price of an "L" series lens, which IMO, isn't worthy of the red stripe on it. Not to say that Mike doesn't have a kick ass copy, but I hear the newer ones being kicked out, are faulty. But if you buy from BH, you can return it within 14 days with no problem. They are pretty reliable.

 

[Jim Hunt]

Before you decide to cut back and go cheap with the glass, remember that the most critical part of the system will be optics. A good lens will also out last any camera. (I personally use a 15 year old 300mm f2.8L everyday day shooting sports action and it is a good today and it was then. *Perfect*)

A lot of people over look it but the 17-85 EF-S is a very good lens and it's focal length makes it ideal on a 1.6 crop camera such as a XTi. (You multiply a lens aby 1.6 on APC sized senors. The 17-85 becomes a 27 - 136mm.) The lens is not fast but even wide you likely will want f4+ to have a wide depth of field and the IS on the lens is good.

Here is sample with that lens on a 20D.

Mike mentioned the 10-22mm lens. That is a very sweet lens and when I sold my 20D and moved to professional seried bodies, I was sad about selling mine but an EF-S lens doesn't work on a 1 series body.

Here is a link to one I took in a gym with natural light. (I normally use strobes but the Athletic Director was a butthead that night about it.)

You might look here for reviews and as always, weed out the ones that are just over the top and a rant.

Good luck and remember to not buy cheap glass.

 

[Jayson Prentice]

I personally own the Sigma line-up of lenses, the 17-70 that was mentioned above and then their 70-300 as well. The 17-70 is a very good lens and many say it rivals the Canon 17-40L which is nearly 3 times the price I believe. If you want to have both a wide angle and telephoto and still have a nice lens, you are likely going to have to buy 2 separate lenses. If you can only afford one to begin with, I'd say look at which one you are going to use most and for most people that'll be the wide angle. Exactly how much is breaking the bank? As you are still going to have to spend a good chunk of money to get a high quality lens to take nice shots with...

I actually still have the kit lens that came with my XTi and it was a great copy, really wasn't terrible at all. If you are interested in buying it separate to save some money I'd be willing to sell it to ya... Just let me know

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

Any chasers out there use or heard anything about this lens, seems the consensus is that Sigma products are normally a cheaper comparable alternative to the Canon glass, I really should just buckle down and get the Canon 10-22mm but can't quite squeeze it into the budget right now. Would really appreciate any info on this lens as is seems it can be picked up new, quite reasonable on Ebay.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...tSiblingItemDetail&Q=prev&Csku=231671&Cis=REG

 

[Cris Schroeder]

I bought my XTi with the kit EF-S 18-55 zoom, and I also have a 17-40L. There is no doubt the L glass is superior in every way to the 18-55 (except weight), but I've noticed over the last year that I don't look at photos to see what lens was used to shoot them. Unless there is a glaring flaw somewhere, the scene and the image speak much louder than the glass used to capture them.

Look at Mike H's website, for the year he shot with the 18-55 (2004). I know he's had unfavorable comments on the 18-55 lens, but he shot some beautiful images with it. His 17-40L images are great, too, but who (other than Mike?) could look at a random sample and pick out the images shot with the L-series glass?

My experience isn't extensive but it's reinforced that you get what you pay for. More expensive glass is almost always better glass. Having said that, I'd buy a beautiful image shot with a crappy lens over a crappy image shot with top-dollar glass. Buy the best you can afford, then forget about it and take the best pictures you can. It's too easy to get caught up in the technical details and forget about the real goal, which is the image.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[Dick McGowan]

Any chasers out there use or heard anything about this lens, seems the consensus is that Sigma products are normally a cheaper comparable alternative to the Canon glass, I really should just buckle down and get the Canon 10-22mm but can't quite squeeze it into the budget right now. Would really appreciate any info on this lens as is seems it can be picked up new, quite reasonable on Ebay.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...tSiblingItemDetail&Q=prev&Csku=231671&Cis=REG

Your link doesn't work Dustin.....

I don't think Sigma is cheaper in quality, it all depends on which lens you have and what you are wanting out of it. I'm happy with the Sigma 10-20, and am glad I bought it over the Canon 10-22. Go look at comparisons between the two, on various websites, they are nearly identical.

Two tests.....

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uwatest

http://www.teglis.com/photo/10mm-zoom-test/

Basically the same lens, with the Sigma being slightly sharper, the Canon better in contrast and has a 1/3 stop edge. You get a lens hood with the Sigma, Canon you do not. If you have the extra 200 bucks, then get the Canon. "Cheaper" glass is in terms of optics, not in price. Don't think that because you just bought a more expensive lens, a less-expensive lens won't perform as well, it may just be quite opposite. I've seen some sh***** pictures from every lens out there, finding a good copy, and one you are happy with is the key.

I should be getting checks in the mail from Sigma as much as I talk them up, and as many hits as I get on my blog about them lol. I am wanting a Canon 5D and 24-105L lens to match it in a major way, but I don't have 3 grand just yet!

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

This is the lens my question was directed towards.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/231673-REG/Sigma_512110_Zoom_Super_W_A_15_30mm.html

While on the topics what makes a lens a good copy or not? I hear that used all the time, yet I'm pretty sure when my lens arrives I'm gonna have no idea as to rather or not its a good copy. Are there certain test to preform or is it that obvious that I will know right away?

 

[Willoughby Owen]

Personally i'm getting fustrated with the Sigma 10-20mm lens these days and am looking to get the Canon version very soon. Soft on the sides and soft when focusing to infinity.
Not to mention it's the poorest lens for lightning too. The 17-40 is amazing, though!

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Look at Mike H's website, for the year he shot with the 18-55 (2004). I know he's had unfavorable comments on the 18-55 lens, but he shot some beautiful images with it. His 17-40L images are great, too, but who (other than Mike?) could look at a random sample and pick out the images shot with the L-series glass?

My biggest issue with my old kit lens was how horrible the contrast was with it. It was muddy to the extreme. It was usually a pain to process that out. That and most of the times it seemed to be impossible to get anything sharp. Edge sharpness was laughable. Purple fringing was really nasty with it too.

I sent Aaron a full sized image once to see what he thought. He saw just how muddy things were with that. The 17-40L was leaps better with that, as well as sharpness, and was hard to get any purple fringing with. That said, it's only about halfway to what the 10-22 EF-S is in regards to contrast and clarity. It's not quite as sharp as the 10-22, but it's damn close. I have no desire for anything to be any sharper than the 10-22 is.

17-40L vs 18-55

That is a joke. Shows how much that whole comparison thing can be worth. It's almost like they have those backwards. Of course that site also suggests the 100-400L I bought is as sharp as the F5.6 400mm prime. Something this site shows something closer to the truth on....HERE(satellite dish crops half way down). The opposite shown HERE where the 100-400L looks as sharp or sharper.

As for that site showing the 10-20 sigma being sharper than the 10-22 canon. I don't buy that. It may be as sharp in both best case scenarios, but I'm not sure how it's declared to have an edge in sharpness. Would love to see that against my copy of the 10-22.

In the end, web site reviews are largely pointless. Well, maybe not if one chooses to read enough of them. Those direct lens comparisons you can get off that one link I included sure seems to have issues.

 

[Nick Parker]

You could compromise by going with the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 EX lens. I like this lens a lot and it's designed for the 1.6 crop sensors (Canon Rebel, XT, XTi, 20D, 30D, 40D, etc). At 17 mm, it is really good in low-light at 2.8, by far the cheapest you'll get at that focal length.

I've looked into this lens and I really seem to like it. Not quite the telephoto I want but oh well. I'll save that for another lens someday. Thanks for all the suggestions/advice. Will be purchasing the whole "rig" very soon.

Nick

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I bought my XTi with the kit EF-S 18-55 zoom, and I also have a 17-40L. There is no doubt the L glass is superior in every way to the 18-55 (except weight), but I've noticed over the last year that I don't look at photos to see what lens was used to shoot them. Unless there is a glaring flaw somewhere, the scene and the image speak much louder than the glass used to capture them.

Look at Mike H's website, for the year he shot with the 18-55 (2004). I know he's had unfavorable comments on the 18-55 lens, but he shot some beautiful images with it. His 17-40L images are great, too, but who (other than Mike?) could look at a random sample and pick out the images shot with the L-series glass?

At full resolution, I probably could. If you're just shooting for yourself and for web images, the 18-55 will be fine. If you're shooting as a professional for image licensing (as Mike is), you need better glass.

BTW -- someone asked about the Sigma 10-20. If you can get a good copy of it, it's an *excellent* lens. However, some of the copies have centering issues so that one side of the images it produces is softer than the other. They may have solved this problem in manufacturing by now, I dunno -- but if you get this lens, check it out well. If it's not right, you can always return it. Sigma also has very long warranties on their glass.

I ended up with the Canon 10-22 because my Sigma copy had centering issues and I knew the Canon lens was more likely to work perfectly with a Canon body. It's the best lens that I own and my hands down favorite; I even like it more than the 70-200 2.8 IS.