Primary (prime) lens for Canon 300D

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Siddhartha Jain, Nov 18, 2005.

  1. Hi,

    Now that I have an ultra-wide in the Sigma 10-20mm, I want to upgrade
    my primary lens which is a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5. My crib with the
    lens is the slow, noisy AF and terrible hunting in low-light. I am
    happy with the colour, contrast, and range, though. Looking at the
    options, I can't seem to arrive at any conclusion so would appreciate
    any help in making up my mind. I will list some upgrades I have in mind
    in the order of priority.

    - The Canon 17-85mm IS USM is nice. But two cribs, one is that the
    widest aperture is f4 and the second is that the maximum reach is 85mm.
    I wouldn't expect the lens to be sharpest at its widest so better
    performance might be achieved at f5.6 which is too slow not to speak of
    the deeper DoF (as compared to f2.8). I know IS will compensate for the
    speed but that will still give me a shutter speed what I would've
    gotten at f2.8. So I am better off with a *real* f2.8 or a IS induced
    f2.8? I don't use the 135mm reach on the Sigma often but its nice to
    have since every once in a while I am in a situation to shoot something
    thats a little far off and I am not carrying a telephoto. Everything
    said, the 17mm is nice, so is IS and USM and its half the price of the
    new 24-105mm f4.

    - The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 has lots of rave reviews all over the forums
    and messageboards. Its a light lens, reasonably priced and f2.8
    constant is surely neat. However, 28mm is definitely not wide enough
    with a 1.6x crop factor and neither is 75mm too long. Also, Tamron AF
    isn't USM exactly.

    - Canon 24-105mm f4 IS - Everything seems nice but for ~$1200 I
    would've liked to have f2.8 and getting less seems like a compromise.
    And if I manage to save $1200 for a lens thats going to be my primary
    lens then I don't want to compromise.

    Some others I considered were Canon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and Canon
    28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

    Thanks,

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Marten Guest

    There is no such thing as a perfect primay, main, carry, etc lens. That's
    the lens that stays on the camera most of the time for general shooting.
    Some don't go wide enough, or long enough, or are not fast enough. Some cost
    too much, seem to have slower AF, are too heavy, made of too much plastic
    and feel junky. For those of us that have a limited budget cost is a big
    concern.

    If you are that undecided, take your camera body to your local camera shop.
    Try the different lenses on it. Take some sample shots in the store. Go
    home, have look at the quality each lens provides and make your decision.
    Then go back and support your local store. That way they'll be there for the
    next photographer with the same dilemma. That's what I did. I chose the
    Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I've had it for about 6 months and I made the right
    decision for me.

    Maren
     
    Marten, Nov 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    tomm101 Guest

    If you have the 10-20 Sigma, you have wide, the gap of 20mm - 28mm or
    (32-48mm) isn't much that you can't do it with your feet (i dislike
    zooms in general so take this with a grain of salt) the Tamron zoom
    does have very good reviews, folks compare it to the 24-70 f2.8 Canon a
    $1400 lens.

    Tom
     
    tomm101, Nov 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    SamSez Guest

    Sorry, but the above makes it sound like your expectations of what you can
    get for the $$$ are much too high -- either that, or you are setting
    yourself to be stuck with pretty poor picture quality.
     
    SamSez, Nov 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    C J Southern Guest

    Faced with the same decision I "bit the bullet" and got a Canon 24-70 F2.8L
    and a Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS - so I've got everything covered from 24 to 200
    (and I'm finding that I'm not having to change often).

    I know that it's not what you'll be wanting to hear price wise, but if you
    make the investment you'll have them for a lot of years. The lesson I
    learned is that there are no shortcuts to quality solutions.
     
    C J Southern, Nov 19, 2005
    #5
  6. The lenses may last for years, but the relative cost may be different around
    the world. The global price for the lenses are mostly based on US dollars,
    but the wages in India are lower than in NZ, US or Norway.

    Personaly I am happy using 20D with a second-hand 24-85 USM, the 18-55 is
    only used for wide angle. I hope to be able to buy the 17-85 IS USM next
    year only due to the wide angle and IS. For tele I am using the old 75-300
    IS USM, but it is used less after I got the 24-85. For low light and less
    DOF I have a 50/1.8. People earning money with their photos may be able to
    spend more on the equipment.
     
    Frode P. Bergsager, Nov 20, 2005
    #6
  7. The biggest issue I have with the "L" series lenses is not cost but
    weight. Each lens is well over a kilogram which mostly rules it out for
    easy handholding and carrrying around for me. I considered the new
    24-105mm f4 L because it is an exception at some ~600gms (and maybe the
    70-200mm f4 L in the future).

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    ian lincoln Guest

    Unfortunately spending money on better lenses will yield better results than
    buying the latest and greatest camera and then plonking a cheap lens on it.
     
    ian lincoln, Nov 21, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.