Back again with Lens Question...

k2butter

I asked about a lens to replace my kit lens on my rebel xt, after reading your input, I decided to hold off a bit save some money (I was looking in the 200 range)... I could save for a while and buy a really expensive lens, but I don't want to, this is a hobby... but I have looked around and wanted to get your input on this lens:

Sigma zoom super wide angle af 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 dc macro auto focus lens. (this is the max I want to spend on a lens- runs around 390-400)...

so, your thoughts? Is this lens any good in low light? That is one of my concerns... the kit lens sucks at night or in low light... I have a nifty fifty, but I don't care for the single focal length lenses since I am always feeling like I need to switch it on and off....

ziggy53

k2butter wrote:

... Sigma zoom super wide angle af 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 dc macro auto focus lens. (this is the max I want to spend on a lens- runs around 390-400)...

so, your thoughts? Is this lens any good in low light? That is one of my concerns... the kit lens sucks at night or in low light... I have a nifty fifty, but I don't care for the single focal length lenses since I am always feeling like I need to switch it on and off....

This would not be a great lens in low light, but it might be OK with sufficient flash (especially a flash with a focus assist light).

Good low light lenses are f2.8 constant aperture zooms or faster primes. I encourage you to look at the Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD or the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463428-REG/Sigma_581101_18_50mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html

http://www.adorama.com/TM1750EOS.html?searchinfo=tamron%2017-50&item_no=5
http://www.adorama.com/SG1850NEOS.html?searchinfo=sigma%2018-50&item_no=22

http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=15471fa51b78721/shopdata/0010_Lenses/0010_Zoom/0010_Digital+Zoom/product_details.shopscript?article=0170_Tamron%2BZoom%2BWide%2BAngle-Normal%2BSP%2B17-50mm%2Bf%3D26slash%3D3B2%3D252E8%2BXR%2BDi%2BII%2BLD%2BAspherical%2B%3D28IF%3D29%2BAutofocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2BCanon%2BDigital%2BEOS%2B%3D28TA1750F28CA%3D29
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=15471fa51b78721/shopdata/0010_Lenses/0010_Zoom/0010_Digital+Zoom/product_details.shopscript?article=0410_Sigma%2BZoom%2BWide%2BAngle-Normal%2B18-50mm%2Bf%3D26slash%3D3B2%3D252E8%2BEX%2BDC%2BMacro%2BAutofocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2BCanon%2BDigital%2BEOS%2B%3D28SG1850F28MCA%3D29

k2butter

See! This is why I love dgrin so much!!!! THanks a bunch!!!

aledophoto

Lenses
First off, I am totally a Canon "L" series snob... But then again, I am always in the dog house with the wife for spending too much money on the photography thing.

Ziggy is right about the low aperature for low lighting. I very rarely use a flash, mostly because I stink at it and results are less than desirable.

Nothing against Sigma, but for the money they cost, I would just as soon buy a Canon lens. I have owned a couple of Tamron lenses and I am just not impressed, even if they are inexpensive.

I would suggest another route. Canon makes two fixed lenses that are very affordable. One is 28mm f2.8 around $150 and the other is 50mm f 1.8 that is around $75. I have owned the 50mm version and it was a tremendous lens. They work wonderful in low light conditions.

I also found that my composition skills improved greatly by shooting with a fixed lens. Give it a try.

www.bearcatimages.com
www.clearforkimages.com

k2butter wrote:

I asked about a lens to replace my kit lens on my rebel xt, after reading your input, I decided to hold off a bit save some money (I was looking in the 200 range)... I could save for a while and buy a really expensive lens, but I don't want to, this is a hobby... but I have looked around and wanted to get your input on this lens:

Sigma zoom super wide angle af 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 dc macro auto focus lens. (this is the max I want to spend on a lens- runs around 390-400)...

so, your thoughts? Is this lens any good in low light? That is one of my concerns... the kit lens sucks at night or in low light... I have a nifty fifty, but I don't care for the single focal length lenses since I am always feeling like I need to switch it on and off....

aledophoto

Nevermind
Sorry... I read that you already own a nifty fifty after I replied to your post.
My thoughts now; save up and buy an EF 17-35 f2.8 or a 24-70 f2.8. I own them both.

Remember... It's all about the glass.

aledophoto wrote:

First off, I am totally a Canon "L" series snob... But then again, I am always in the dog house with the wife for spending too much money on the photography thing.

Ziggy is right about the low aperature for low lighting. I very rarely use a flash, mostly because I stink at it and results are less than desirable.

Nothing against Sigma, but for the money they cost, I would just as soon buy a Canon lens. I have owned a couple of Tamron lenses and I am just not impressed, even if they are inexpensive.

I would suggest another route. Canon makes two fixed lenses that are very affordable. One is 28mm f2.8 around $150 and the other is 50mm f 1.8 that is around $75. I have owned the 50mm version and it was a tremendous lens. They work wonderful in low light conditions.

I also found that my composition skills improved greatly by shooting with a fixed lens. Give it a try.

www.bearcatimages.com
www.clearforkimages.com

claudermilk

There's really no way around it when you are shooting low-light. You have to spring for fast glass. The less-expensive route is primes since the consumer-priced ones tend to be about f1.8, and you can step up to L glass to get down to f1.2. For zooms, f2.8 is the best you can get and it's gonna cost you. There's some alternatives with various other compromises (see the Canon 24-70/2.8 vs Sigma 24-70/2.8 thread), but even the budget alternatives are pushing your budget. When you start getting into these more challenging applications, you start to really see the expense of the hobby.