Lens Advice?

Rewen · February 24, 2009

Hey Everyone,
I am looking to get a good all round lens for my XTi, but not sure where to start looking. A photographer friend mentioned the Sigma has a few nice once that I can use with my camera. I want to be able to shoot everything with it, I hate switching lenses when I am at a time sensitive shoot.
Thanks a bunch!

cj99si · February 24, 2009

What do you shoot?

sigma has an 18-250 but quality and speed will suffer.

Tamron has a 17-50 thats fast and sharp.

Sigma has a 70-200 thats fast and sharp.

Theres a million lenses and none do it all.

Candid Arts · February 24, 2009

problem with getting a lens that covers a high majority of a focal length, so that you can "shoot everything w/o changing lenses"...you will be getting a variable aperture lens. Problem with these are usually slower focusing speed, lesser image quality, and slower shutter speeds at longer focal lengths due to the narrow aperture (usually around 4.5-5.6).

"Shoot everything w/o changing lenses" lens:
Goods:
Cheap, wide focal range, light, compact

Bads:
Cheap, slower focus speed, lesser IQ, smaller apertures, wider DOF's, slower shutter speeds in lower light situations.

"Changing lenses to accommodate focal length needs lenses" lens:
Goods:
Excellent IQ, Fast focusing, narrow DOF, faster shutter speeds

Bads:
More expensive, heavier, having to change lenses to get a longer or wider focal length.

But all you do to fix that is have another body, with your longer lens on one and wider lens on the other, and you're set. Get all the benefits.

I personally wouldn't buy cheap(er) glass. You glass is gonna give you your picture. You can have the nicest camera body ever made, but with a cheap lens, you're gonna get cheap pictures.

Rewen · February 24, 2009

Candid Arts wrote:

problem with getting a lens that covers a high majority of a focal length, so that you can "shoot everything w/o changing lenses"...you will be getting a variable aperture lens. Problem with these are usually slower focusing speed, lesser image quality, and slower shutter speeds at longer focal lengths due to the narrow aperture (usually around 4.5-5.6).

"Shoot everything w/o changing lenses" lens:
Goods:
Cheap, wide focal range, light, compact

Bads:
Cheap, slower focus speed, lesser IQ, smaller apertures, wider DOF's, slower shutter speeds in lower light situations.

"Changing lenses to accommodate focal length needs lenses" lens:
Goods:
Excellent IQ, Fast focusing, narrow DOF, faster shutter speeds

Bads:
More expensive, heavier, having to change lenses to get a longer or wider focal length.

But all you do to fix that is have another body, with your longer lens on one and wider lens on the other, and you're set. Get all the benefits.

I personally wouldn't buy cheap(er) glass. You glass is gonna give you your picture. You can have the nicest camera body ever made, but with a cheap lens, you're gonna get cheap pictures.

Thanks for the advice, although buying multiple camera bodies is totally out of the budget right now.

Is there anything middle of the road that doesn't compromise quality?

I shoot everything from portraits to nature.

Candid Arts · February 24, 2009

Are you looking for superb quality, i.e. sellable, or just for your own, scrapbook, photo album type purposes, or web and email? If either of those, then the cheaper lenses will be fine, only downfall at that point is the slowness of the lens, you'll be limited there.

I'd say, a great, for the most part, all around lens, is the 24-105 f/4 L IS. You get fairly wide, a little zoom, constant f/4 aperture, IS, and L glass, all for the price of about $1100 (ish). Get a good filter for it and good to go. If you need more zoom than that...I suppose one of the "kit" lenses, i.e. 18-205 (I think it is) might be something to look at, I've never used one though. I'm sure the IQ will be good enough, it's just the variable aperture that gets to me. I don't like variable aperture much.

My optimum set would be 24-70 f/2.8 L, and 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. That way your set (for the most part), with two lenses. And you could also get a 2x extender to make your 70-200 a 140-400 f/5.6 w/o having to buy an expensive 400mm lens. For those two lenses and extender you'd be about $3k, which I'm assuming is out of the budget (it is for me, that's my dream combo right now)?

I'd read some reviews on some of the lenses you're looking at, try and rent a couple or borrow from friends who have them, see which one you like best and will suite your needs best, and go from there.

Art Scott · February 24, 2009

Rewen wrote:

Thanks for the advice, although buying multiple camera bodies is totally out of the budget right now.

Is there anything middle of the road that doesn't compromise quality?

I shoot everything from portraits to nature.

a GOOD 3rd party 70-200 f2.8.....now many will argue this point however......I started shooting with a vivatar 70-210 f2.8-4 over 25yrs ago....then I went to Sigma 70-210 f2.8......to start with I started out shooting wedding and portraits with the V70-210.....a times it was tooo long so I stepped back.......when the 210 was too short....I walked forward.......when I could afford a 2nd body I got one......but shot as a single lens user for over 20+ years......then decided to venture in to the wider spectrum and settled on a Sigma 24-70f2.8.......but if the 17-70 had been available that would have been my choice of 2nd lens for 2nd body........

In reality there is no one lens solution.....but if you MASTER your equipment you can do just as much as the photog with 15 or 20 lenses most of which sit unused in the closet..........

Shooting groups at a wedding was a challenge for me with 70mm being my widest but I new exactly how many steps I had to take backward to get 25 or 30 people in a wedding party group shot......once I had to go outdoors and shoot back into the sanctuary.....spreading my studio strobes out a bit to keep them out of frame.....but it worked............I am an equipment miniamlist.....I assess what I truly want to shoot for the next 5 or so years and trade equipment to do what I want to do....then if I caome back to something I was bored with or tired of I trade again.......guess that is called re-inventing of oneself....much as a musician will do.

Good Luck

jrmyrnsm · February 24, 2009

Art Scott wrote:

Shooting groups at a wedding was a challenge for me with 70mm being my widest but I new exactly how many steps I had to take backward to get 25 or 30 people in a wedding party group shot......once I had to go outdoors and shoot back into the sanctuary.....spreading my studio strobes out a bit to keep them out of frame.....but it worked............I am an equipment miniamlist.....I assess what I truly want to shoot for the next 5 or so years and trade equipment to do what I want to do....then if I caome back to something I was bored with or tired of I trade again.......guess that is called re-inventing of oneself....much as a musician will do.

Way to go Art! I can't even imagine having my only lens be a 70-200 and having to do group shots! Theres been times that I've had to step back with a 17-50... I have real respect for anyone doing it with just a tele...

As for the original post I think your best bang for the buck is going to be something like a Tamron 17-50 as it covers most of what I shoot. If I had the money the previously mentioned 24-105L would be my first choice for a walk around lens on Canon. The new Canon 18-200 IS might also be a decent option if you don't need the speed of a 2.8 or 4 and would give you a decent do everything lens. The 28-135 IS is also a decent lens but is still a little slow depending on your work. Sadly its really kinda hard to just have one lens... Good luck!

Art Scott · February 25, 2009

jrmyrnsm wrote:

Way to go Art! I can't even imagine having my only lens be a 70-200 and having to do group shots! Theres been times that I've had to step back with a 17-50... I have real respect for anyone doing it with just a tele...

As for the original post I think your best bang for the buck is going to be something like a Tamron 17-50 as it covers most of what I shoot.

Jrmyrnsm, the reason I went with the original 70-210 was that was the fastest zoom out at the time......I also had no one to ask ?'s of as we do here........but all other glass was either primes and I did not want to be changing lenses........I still use it mre than my 24-70.....but I have well over 25yrs of using it also......that huge lens also got me noticed.........also as I said above I would opt for the 17-70 now over my 24-70.....it is a variable 2.8-4.5.....but most don't use the lowest end very often s the sweet spot will usually be in the f5.6 - f11 area..............

Scott_Quier · February 25, 2009

Lots of good advice already posted here. I'm just going to pile on....

To the best of my knowledge, there is no lens that does it all and does it well. With lenses, much like everything else in life, there are always compromises to be made.
There's the Tamron AF 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC, the Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM, and the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. The "problem" with these lenses is the variable aperture. Shooting outside under strong lighting condition, probably not much of a problem. In addition, zooms covering wide focal length ranges are known to have image quality issues - just one of the compromises one makes when selecting these lens.
Were I you, I would consider a 2-lens solution:
- 17ish - 50ish f/2.8
- 70ish - 200ish f/2.8

For example, the following are some of the offerings from three manufacturers that are worth looking at:

Canon
- EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
- and one of the EF 70-200 variants (f/2.8L IS, f/2.8L, f/4L IS, f/4L)
or
- EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
- EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Tamron
- SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
- SP AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro
Sigma
- 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM
- APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM
Of course, you can look at the Bigma (Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 DG):D Covers the range and really doesn't compromise much on the image quality. The down-sides? Well there's the slow aperture and the weight (1,840g/64.9 oz, that's just a touch over 4 pounds!)

Of course, there's no reason you can't mix and match brands either. Choices, choices, choices. You've got to decide for yourself what's important to you and make your lens decision(s) with your criteria in mind.

Tee Why · February 25, 2009

Personally, I think a good walking around type of a zoom from Sigma would be the 17-70mm and the 18-125mm OS. They give pretty versatile range and the optics are less of a compromise than those 18-200mm + zooms like hte 18-200mm OS from them, the 18-270mm Tamron, and the 18-200mm IS from Canon.

If you must have a 18-200+ MM zoom, the Tamron 18-270mm VC may be a good option.

Take a look at these comparisons for the various lenses.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

paddler4 · February 25, 2009

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. There is no way to answer the question sensibly unless you can say more about what you shoot. What focal lengths are most useful for you? Do you need a fast lens? How much does weight or length bother you? My two walk-around lenses are a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and an EF-S 60mm f /2.8 macro (which doubles as a fine prime, although a tad long on a crop sensor camera such as mine). both have great optics, are reasonably fast (which is very important for what I do), and relatively inexpensive. For me, they are great choices. For some other people, they are lousy choices. E.g., some people would rather have a shorter focal length range, given what they shoot, and lots of people would rather have a slower lens than tote around the extra weight that the fixed 2.8 entails with the Tamron. So, you can get a lot of really well-informed advice here that won't be on target for you, if you don't clarify what you need. Otherwise, people will give you advice based on what works for them.

codrus · February 26, 2009

Rewen wrote:

Thanks for the advice, although buying multiple camera bodies is totally out of the budget right now.

Keep in mind that good lenses hold their value for a very long time -- much longer than camera bodies do. You can pick up a used 20D or 30D for not all that much money.

--Ian

mercphoto · February 26, 2009

Rewen wrote:

Thanks for the advice, although buying multiple camera bodies is totally out of the budget right now.

Is there anything middle of the road that doesn't compromise quality?

I shoot everything from portraits to nature.

I think the best advice is, if buying a second body is not in the budget, then pick a more narrowly focused part of your business and concentrate on that. Then pick the lens that will be best for that part of the business. Branch out from that as profits come in and the business builds. And, price yourself so that you have profits to re-invest into your business.

If you really hate changing lenses then a second body needs to be in your business plan as an eventual purchase. If you really want a do-it-all lens then you will need to sacrifice quality. Sorry, but "middle of the road" and "doesn't compromise quality" don't go together. A do-it-all lens WILL compromise quality. If it didn't, then they wouldn't make the other lenses in the first place.

ntotrr · March 2, 2009

Tee Why wrote:

Personally, I think a good walking around type of a zoom from Sigma would be the 17-70mm and the 18-125mm OS. They give pretty versatile range and the optics are less of a compromise than those 18-200mm + zooms like hte 18-200mm OS from them, the 18-270mm Tamron, and the 18-200mm IS from Canon.

If you must have a 18-200+ MM zoom, the Tamron 18-270mm VC may be a good option.

Take a look at these comparisons for the various lenses.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

I have the Sigma 17-70mm lens and it is quite good. Being a DC lens (for APS-C sensor digital cameras only), it's lightweight compared to an EX. The 18-200mm DC OS lens makes a very good walk-around. Image quality is good but woth that wide range in focal length you can't expect it to perform as well as the 17-70mm lens.

Lens Advice?

Comments