Time for a new lens

T

tjiPPi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
191
Reaction score
11
Location
PTA
I would like some opinions on the following 2 lenses. Which one would you recommend?

Canon EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM
or
Sigma 18-125 f3.5-5.6 DC OS HSM

Or should I be looking at something else? I want to replace my 18-55 kit lens with something better.

BTW: It's for my 350D:)
 
What's your budget?
 
tjiPPi said:
Canon EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM
Click to expand...
I have one of those, and I would not recommend it. Not a good lens for a crop digital camera. That other lens you mentioned will be much better than the 28-135. Better in every way. Better range (starts at 18), better sharpness (I don't know, but I'm pretty sure about it), better OS. The 28-135 is a 1998 lens that was designed for 35mm film. The Sigma will be a much better choice for a crop digital cam. And that's coming from the guy who owns a 28-135IS, but I use it for 35mm, not digital. I know it comes with the 40D kit, but that's just stupid of Canon. Your 18-55 has better performance than the 28-135 - I can promise you that. You'll have to ask someone else about that Sigma, but if your reason for ditching the 18-55 is optics then I have some bad news for you. If you want more range and/or IS, by all means go for it, but sharper? I don't think so. The 18-55 is a great lens. Canon also make a nice 18-200IS. You might want to have a look at that, but ask koffiejunkie about it. He had one. I think he did not like it. I can't remember.

Good luck
 
I have the Canon 17-85 IS USM and I get some awesome pics with it. I'm now saving up for the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM but it looks like I may retire before I get it. :o I'm also shooting with an old 20d but I think I will stick with that for quite some time. The new Canons feel a little plasticy to me. Only cause I can't afford a new 7d. :D
 
Thanks for the info Idmelsa! I think I'll avoid that one then.

MadMailMan said:
I have the Canon 17-85 IS USM and I get some awesome pics with it. I'm now saving up for the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM but it looks like I may retire before I get it. :o I'm also shooting with an old 20d but I think I will stick with that for quite some time. The new Canons feel a little plasticy to me. Only cause I can't afford a new 7d. :D
Click to expand...

The Canon 17-85 IS USM seems like very good candidate, thanks. I will also be sticking with my 350D for as long as possible:)
 
If you want more range, get the 17-85mm IS USM (or the newer 15-85). If you want better, get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It's better in every way.
 
tjiPPi said:
I would like some opinions on the following 2 lenses. Which one would you recommend?

Canon EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM
or
Sigma 18-125 f3.5-5.6 DC OS HSM

Or should I be looking at something else? I want to replace my 18-55 kit lens with something better.

BTW: It's for my 350D:)
Click to expand...
I have the non-OS version of the 18-125. It has a super range for a single walkabout lens, but it sukkelled with focus, making it rather impractical for candid people shots. Super for landscapes, though. They have changed the focus mechanism (now HSM), which has hopefully fixed that problem.



Some galleries in which all the pics were taken with the older 18-125 on a 350d:

http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/Travel/Sulz-am-Neckar-and-surrounding
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/Travel/Black-Forest-and-Mosel-Valley
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/Travel/Istanbul
 
ldmelsa said:
What do you mean by better? You want more range/speed/IS? What is your reason for getting a new lens?
Click to expand...

I would say a bit more range and IS. I am able to stretch the budget a bit though (R8k-9K). I do realise that for better sharpness I'll have to go for a lens which is much more expensive unfortunately.
 
BigAl-sa said:
I have the non-OS version of the 18-125. It has a super range for a single walkabout lens, but it sukkelled with focus, making it rather impractical for candid people shots. Super for landscapes, though. They have changed the focus mechanism (now HSM), which has hopefully fixed that problem.



Some galleries in which all the pics were taken with the older 18-125 on a 350d:

http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/Travel/Sulz-am-Neckar-and-surrounding
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/Travel/Black-Forest-and-Mosel-Valley
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/Travel/Istanbul
Click to expand...

I've read some reviews about the OS HSM version and they didn't have any issues with the focus iirc. Maybe it is sorted out - will read some more in case I missed something. BTW:Nice pics!
 
tjiPPi said:
I would say a bit more range and IS. I am able to stretch the budget a bit though (R8k-9K). I do realise that for better sharpness I'll have to go for a lens which is much more expensive unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Which kit lens do you have - the more recent IS one or the older one? The IS one is very sharp. You're not going to see much difference with any other lens on a 350D in terms of sharpness.
 
koffiejunkie said:
Which kit lens do you have - the more recent IS one or the older one? The IS one is very sharp. You're not going to see much difference with any other lens on a 350D in terms of sharpness.
Click to expand...

I have the old non IS version.
 
Thanks for all the help guys!

I think it's the Canon 17-85 IS USM then.
 
I think the 17-85IS is overpriced, and does not offer enough, over your current lens, to justify the price. My 18-55 had better performance than the 17-85. Both in terms of sharpness and chromatic aberrations. And given the price difference, I just can't recommend the 17-85IS.
 
Yeah, I kinda agree with ldmelsa. The thing is, you're not going to get more range in any lens without giving up something. That said, the one lens that seems to buck the trend is the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro. It's performance is fairly even right through the range, and CA and vignetting isn't too bad and it's fast at the wide end. It's not stabilised though.

If you want better performance *and* more range, you're going to have to look at L glass or at least something like the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8. That's if you're willing to be limited to 24mm at the wide end.
 
ldmelsa said:
I think the 17-85IS is overpriced, and does not offer enough, over your current lens, to justify the price. My 18-55 had better performance than the 17-85. Both in terms of sharpness and chromatic aberrations. And given the price difference, I just can't recommend the 17-85IS.
Click to expand...
Although I haven't used the lens, I've spoken to quite a few people who have, and have to agree with ldmelsa.

For normal day to day stuff, I'd rather suggest a two lens setup - 10-20ish and 24 to something (but that would break your budget :().

Here some pics taken with such a two lens combo
 
BigAl-sa said:
Although I haven't used the lens, I've spoken to quite a few people who have, and have to agree with ldmelsa.

For normal day to day stuff, I'd rather suggest a two lens setup - 10-20ish and 24 to something (but that would break your budget :().

Here some pics taken with such a two lens combo
Click to expand...
Isnt that more of a specialty lens or do most people really enjoy shooting that wide? Personally I dont which is why I'm getting rid of my 16-35 in favour of the 24-70.

I dont blame the OP for wanting to improve on the kit lens - nothing good to say about it unless you're into heavy distortion and CA - I just dont know what to suggest. Ideally I'd say Canon's 17-55 2.8 or a Canon/Sigma 24-70 but they dont come cheap. I've also heard pretty good things about the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM.
 
The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 looks very nice and so does the Sigma 17-70. I think I'll take my camera to a shop and take a couple of shots with both the lenses.

Thanks for all the help so far!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X