Looking to upgrade sigma 18-200mm-but to what?
photographz
Registered Users Posts: 55 Big grins
I have a Sigma 18-200mm lens that I use almost exclusively on my Rebel XT. I *just* picked up a Canon 100mm Macro this past Friday and have only had a short time to "play" with it. The difference is amazing. The Canon is so smooth and quiet compared to the Sigma, and it doesn't hunt nearly as much either. I know you get what you pay for, and the Sigma isn't a super expensive lens. The range and weight are perfect for me for a walk around lens, but at the high end of it's range I find landscapes tend to be soft, it has a hard time focusing and it hunts a lot more than I'd prefer. I like that it's not heavier than the camera body, and that I can shoot a flower then turn around and shoot a bird then the mountains in the distance without switching lenses. But that doesn't help if half the photos are soft or blurry! I'm not a pro, I'd call myself an advanced amateur. I do sell photos, but not for a living. Anything I buy needs to produce sellable photos. I think the sigma would be perfect for a family vacation or casual shooter, but I am not happy with the results it produces for salable photos (they are good pictures, not great photographs), at least when it's fully extended.
Can anyone recommend a good replacment? Even if it's two lenses. I've read reviews on both the Canon 18-200 with IS and the 28-200 without. Both are heavier, and the 18-200 sounds like it will be the same as my Sigma (soft focus on longer focal lengths). The 28-200 sounds better, but judging by the price, I'm betting it's not by much. Any experiance with either of those lenses would be great to hear too.
Can anyone recommend a good replacment? Even if it's two lenses. I've read reviews on both the Canon 18-200 with IS and the 28-200 without. Both are heavier, and the 18-200 sounds like it will be the same as my Sigma (soft focus on longer focal lengths). The 28-200 sounds better, but judging by the price, I'm betting it's not by much. Any experiance with either of those lenses would be great to hear too.
My galleries: http://photographz.smugmug.com/
0
Comments
Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM
While there is a slight gap from 55mm-70mm I have not missed it. The quality of these 2 lenses on a Canon crop camera is about as good as it gets and I am extremely happy with the combination.
The 70-200mm, f4, will accept a Canon 1.4x teleconverter and I also carry a Canon 500D, 77mm, 2 diopter close-up lens with 67-77mm ring to fit the 70-200mm, f/4L, which gives almost 1:1 at MFD.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It was just not wide enough for the indoor and fireworks. So I bought a 11 -18 wide angles to cover the short end.
After having the 5D, I started to collect the L-lens.
Conclusion, it may be better to stay with the 18-200 and add the wide angle zoom for general use. But if you are looking for more image quality, consider the IS lens, such as 24-105 F4 IS which is a good walk-about lens covers 40 - 170 mm at F4. The IS allow you to get 2-3 stop advantage.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
I was just looking at the EF 70-200 f4 IS USM, it looks like it might be the way to go. I hadn't even looked at it because I saw it was a white lens and figured it would be more expensive than it is.
Thanks for pointing me to it, I probably wouldn't have looked at it otherwise.
The "IS" version is fairly expensive but the "non-IS" version is quite resonable considering the quality.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums