Before I left for holiday I was thinking alot about wich camera to get and more importantly wich lens(es). I then decided to for the 400D, but still had not made up my mind about the lens yet. The only lens I was sure about getting with the Canon 50mm F1.8 Prime. From the beginning I had set my mind to canon lenses. I was sure that my standard zoom would be the 17-40 L. Since I feel forced to "match" everything, I was planning the 70-400 F4 L as a future purchase. Bouth choices were based on alot of reviews. But a few things bothered me about this setup. First in line is the big total price-tag. The F4 didn't seem that impressive for such expensive lenses either. I don't like the attention-seeking color of the 70-200. Finally, I'm not a professional and take very good care of my equipment, so I have no need for a lens that can take a severe beating. I had a brief look at the 17-55 F2.8 IS, but labeled it "too expensive". So I continued my long and difficult search without much luck. So, I "came back" on my canon-only choice and had a good look at the third party equipment. Since I have an obsessive need to "match", I need to get bouth zooms from the same brand and make sure they also have some other interesting lenses for future purchases. So I came to this Sigma set: Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC Sigma 50-150 F2.8 EX APO DC HSM Sadly the 18-50 does not have HSM, wich is something I did want. But they also have a 10-20mm (ultra wide), 105mm F2.8 macro, 150 F2.8 macro, 30 F1.4 and a few fisheye lenses. So plenty of choice for future purchases. I know sigma isn't as good as the Canon L-lenses, but they are alot cheaper. So I will beable to afford a set alot faster (cheaper) and it will be F2.8. I think I can live without the red line and a little slower focusing. What do you guys think? All opinions are very welcome. Thanks L
Seems a little bit weird to have to have matching lenses, and it restricts your choice. But I won't ask... I asked someone on another forum about the 18-50 Sigma f/2.8 and they showed me some mixed reviews. Some are great, others not so good, saying it was ok for the money but not amazing. Very sharp but quite a lot of CA. I don't think that it's really anywhere in the same league as the 17-40 L, even if it does have the 2.8. My personal opinion is that if you really must match everything, to go Canon. If you go the Sigma route then there will probably be a little nagging feeling at the back of your mind telling you that you will never have the top-of-the-range kit (L glass). That would bother me, but maybe not you? P.S. Sigma have just (yesterday in fact) released a new EX zoom - An 18-50 f/2.8 Macro (although not "true" macro) for £370. Might be worth a look? P.P.S. Most Sigma lenses "match" in that they look the same-ish, but the 3 Canon ones you mention (50/1.8, 17-40L, 70-200L) all look different anyway...
Yeah I know it's weird (the matching). The canon L glass route will give me great lenses, but they do come at a great price. The 17-40 L is still in my mind though.. The 50-150 is a better range for a 1.6x crop then a 70-200 though.. So you are saying I should rather go 17-40 F4 L + 70-200 F4 L ? (a 70-200 F4 IS, F2.8 or F2.8 IS are all too expensive!). Or force myself to "mix" (17-40 L + 50-150 EX ?) ? Thanks for your opinion, L
I think that if you've got the 50mm f/1.8 (and you should, definitely! Or the 1.4 if you can stretch to it - the 1.8 is a bit "plasticky" if you're fussy) then you won't miss the extra bit at the short end of the 70-200. I think the 70-200 is a better range, but I have no idea about image quality. I think the 17-40 and 70-200L would make a lovely set
you are very odd. buy lenses that best suit your purpose for the price point you are looking at. not which will look all nice when together :/ they spend their lives hidden away in kit bags anyway when they're not on your body. Not sure where you've been shopping to get the impressing that the 70-200 f4 L is an expensive lens anyhoo. it's an absolute bargain, the best value L glass in the L series and a stunning piece of kit. it's about £400-80 (about $600-750euro?) and will be my next lens purchase. It seems to me that you seem unsure of what you actually want. Have you thought about what you actually want to shoot and what lenses you would actually NEED for each type of photography, rather then just trying to compile a stock a lenses that covers all bases, regardless of whether you need them or not. Which is what i get the impression you are doing at the moment. For example if you are going to shoot mostly architecture, or people and macro then a telephoto isn't going to you a whole load of good and you'd be much better off buying a good flash gun and other accessories. On the other hand, if you're going to shoot a lot of sports or widlife then you are going to need a good quality telephoto lens for good results. So first off, decide exactly what it is you want to shoot. then look at the best lens(es) for the job(s). Not 'OOOOOOOO I want a pretty set of lenses to go with my nice new body'.
Ok, I know the matching is really silly, but I can't help it. I have been thinking about getting a dSLR since the beginning of August. I have gone true the whole "What range do I need?" along time ago, based on my experiences with my P&S; I waited till I got back from my trip to confirm my thoughts on what range I'll need the most. Background information: My P&S has a 38-114mm zoom lens (35mm equivalent).The 17-40 L will be a 27-64. A 50 prime will be a 80. The 70-200 L will be a 112-320. The 50-150 EX will be a 80-240. On my P&S I use the wide end most of the time and sometimes it is just not wide enough (when there isn't much room). So the 17-40 L looks like a very good lens for me, based on the photography I do with my P&S and my personal 'style'. I think (hope) it will be wide enough for me. But on my trip, however, I really missed more tele. I used the 38 alot but didn't need anything wider, I did however had the need for something longer on more then one occasion.. Ok, time to get to the point. The 17-40 L has looked like the perfect choice from day one. But I really prefer shooting without tripod/monopod. Because of that, I'm really worried the F4 won't be enough for me. Offcours I'll have the 50/F1.8 for those occassions but if I'll be using the prime 80% of the time, then there is no point in investing that much in the 17-40 L in the first place (invest the most in the lens you use the most). So thats why I was looking for a F2.8 zoomlens in the same budget. The reason why I immediatly envole the tele I might get in the future is because I really like to have an idea of the total amount this will cost me in the next two years. L But thanks everybody for there honest opinions. I just can't grasp that these Sigma lenses are that awfull.. alot of the price for the Canon goes into the Canon-name and the red line.
I've pretty much set my mind on the following combo; 30D, Sigma 17-70 and a 70-200 F4L. I wish i could afford the 17-55 but alas. The difference in price between the sigma 17 and canon 17-40L will buy you the battery grip and part of a good flash. A 50mm and a fish eye will follow eventually.
tbh, I don't think the F4 is much of an issue, especially not at the wider end. Remember you don't need such fast shutter speeds at wider angles to maintain a sharp image (one over length). All my lenses are F3.5 or better (all but one at least 2.8) and a I seldom use them wide open. Yes, it's nice to have that option in low light or when I want to play with the DOF, but it's not a neccessity. I admit I spent a lot when I first bought in to this SLR mullarky but I think a lot of people got too caught up in the numbers. For an example of what you can do with ordinary kit, you need look no further than _rebekka's Flickr. That woman is an amazing example of how a 350D and a kit lens can work for you.
Given that you like wide angle stuff, have you considered a super-wide lens like the Sigma 10-20 or the Canon EF-S 10-22? I think that will probably be my next new lens purchase (if anyone can find a second hand Sigma I want to know!). So with that, and a 50mm and a decent tele, you have a very good range, albeit with a few gaps in the middle. It depends what you're into, but a lot of the landscape guys on another forum I go on use the 10-20 as a general walkaround lens. It certainly gives pretty interesting results, if not completely conventional. Bear in mind that the 10-20 makes a 16-32 in full frame money - which is nearly what a lot of people use on the high end canons (I'm thinking of the 16-35 2.8L). Then maybe just use the Canon kit lens for those shots you absolutely need in that range? You might as well get it with the camera, it's very cheap when bought together - you'll only save £20 or so and for that sort of money it's worth having even if it's only as a last resort.
no one has said anything like 'sigma lenses are awful'. on the contrary they make some excellent lenses, with excellent optics at excellent prices. i adore my sigma 10-20mm and often use it as a walkabout lens. it's superb for the price. if i'm honest, you still don't sound like you know what you want to take photos off. so i'd highly recommend first of all just buying the 400d with kit lens to start off. just to get a feel for the camera and a feel for the focal range of the kit lens. once you have used it for a couple of weeks you will be familiar with were it is lacking personally for you. and then you will be in a much better position to judge what lens you want to buy. you seem to be in too much of a hurry to get it all planned out when you don't seem entirely sure of what you even need. you are potentially spending a lot of money here so there is absolutely no point in rushing in. you might used the kit lens for a week and say 'hmm i like the range of the kit lens but image quality is lacking, i'll get the 17-40.' or you might decide that the kit lens is sufficient and you'd rather have an ultra wide sigma 10-20 or canon 10-22 instead. you've got nothing to lose this way and you can make sure you are getting what you need. not what you think you need.
Thanks for all reply's. I guess I still have alot to think about. About the kitlens: The 400D body costs 799euro here, with the kitlens its 899euro; so you pay 100euro for the kitlens. Keeping in mind that you can buy this lens brandnew for 75euro, I don't see the point in getting it in kit.. (really weird to me). But ok, I guess I can find a used one for 50euro's and start of with that. The 50euro won't financialy kill me and I'do have to agree it will help me in my lens-decisions alot. And I know alot of people take great pictures with the kitlens. For the more demanding shots, I will just have to do with a 50/1.8 prime. Thanks for all the advice/help! L
If there really is a 100 euro difference, then it's not worth it. For that sort of money, the cheap Sigma is much better value, apparently.
Thanks for your reply Tomm. I agree the 100euro extra is too much. But I'm looking to find a bargain a used kitlens.. Tokina is also releasing a 16-50 F2.8.. I really have to get that matching-thing out of my mind.. :s
I have to agree with olv, buy the camera and kit lens then after a month or so you will know exactly what you need.
I can't really give any advice on lens choices (seeing how as I am on Nikon mounts), but I can give you my experience, perhaps it will be useful... I picked up a D50 a few months ago, after deciding to start photography as a hobby. Before then I didn't know my aperture from my bokeh. I have really found photography enjoying though - because at weekends, I just pick up my camera and go and take some photos of things I love. I got the D50 with the 18-55 kit lens, which is a great lens, but I quickly found I preferred nature and wildlife photography, and soon found the 55mm limiting; so after looking at a couple of review sites, I got a Nikon 75-300 (on ebay: a bit risky I know), which is perfect for those close-up wildlife shots. I am now even happier, and am usually found around Surrey with a bruised hip where my camera + 75-300mm lens has been bashing me all afternoon! I think I've said too much already - go out buy the 400D (or D80 ) and start enjoying your hobby - after all that's what it's all about!
