Lens Upgrade

[joebranko]

Thinking of replacing my Canon kit lens 18-55mm APS , with a Sigma 17-70 mm APS. Is anyone familiar with this Sigma lens? Is this a worthwhile upgrade from the kit lens?
The specs are shown here: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/312-...report--review
Would appreciate your comments. Thanks.

[Manfred M]

Unless your lens is not doing what you want, why are you spending the money on a lens with fairly similar coverage?

Chances are your images are not going to improve any going to this lens, and the review only gives it middling marks (3 stars out of 5). I'm not sure which of the 18-55mm lenses you have, but the optical review by Photozone.de suggests that the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is better than the Sigma, although the mechanical quality is lower.

[joebranko]

Unless your lens is not doing what you want, why are you spending the money on a lens with fairly similar coverage?

Chances are your images are not going to improve any going to this lens, and the review only gives it middling marks (3 stars out of 5). I'm not sure which of the 18-55mm lenses you have, but the optical review by Photozone.de suggests that the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is better than the Sigma, although the mechanical quality is lower.

The lens I have is exactly the one you describe. I am hoping to improve the quality of my shots, and felt that the lens I have is not a quality lens. Apparently the sigma lens I selected is not better. Thanks for the input.

[Manfred M]

The lens I have is exactly the one you describe. I am hoping to improve the quality of my shots, and felt that the lens I have is not a quality lens. Apparently the sigma lens I selected is not better. Thanks for the input.

My philosophy on buying additional photographic equipment; and that includes lenses, is that the reason to do so is when the piece of equipment restricts your moving forward as a photographer. As an example, if you are looking for shallower depth of field or better low light shots, then a faster lens might be worth the investment. The same thing goes if you are running into focal length issues (not wide enough or not enough reach).

I keep reaching back into the archives. This shot was taken with a cheap point & shoot and is a straight out of the camera jpeg. If I remember some your landscape images; look at shooting within an hour of sunrise or sunset. That is probably the simplest thing you can do to improve your images; sunny skies in the middle of the day or overcast skies are not the best conditions for landscape work.



The camera and lens often have nothing to do with the image you capture. I you start creating large prints, they might, but unlikely if you are posting on the internet or viewing on a computer screen. Work on your technique and understand lighting and you will improve a lot more as a photographer, than changing to a different lens.

[rpcrowe]

Again, I agree with Manfred but, would like to add that the kit lenses such as the 18-55mm (especially versions 2 or 3) produce some pretty nice imagery, when shot at the middle of their range (either in focal length of aperture), especially when tripod mounted.

When the entry-level lenses seem to fall short is at the ends of their focal lengths and when shot wide open. Fast and accurate AF in lower light levels is another time that top-line lenses shine...

[IzzieK]

I used to think like you, Joe...I thought it was my lens and all of my cropped Nikons have Nikon lenses plus the ones that came as a kit. Then I started shooting everyday, read articles after articles on improving shots and practice in my chair by the deck sometimes with an article of interest that I printed, following the techniques. I got to know my camera as a result. In short, it wasn't the camera nor the lens. It was me. I keep buying a camera every two years and never get to know it by heart. By the time I barely get to learn the last camera I bought, it is time to buy another camera. Now with shooting everyday, well almost...even of mundane subject, I can pick up any of my cameras now and know what to change in the menu and how I'd like to use it. It does not matter what lens I have on it, since all of my cameras are now equipped with battery, memory card and a lens (for quick pick-up when I see something.) I have also learned how to put my camera in a safe place near the door, just in case. Lens? Does it matter? Of course it does because without it, there is image either and it depends on what you want to catch as a memory.

And oh btw, I like Sigma lenses. A cheaper alternative for me who does not have a gazillion money to spend on Nikon lenses most of the time I felt the urge to purchase glass.

[joebranko]

Thanks again Manfred. Your comments are very insightful.

[joebranko]

Having reflected on this and the comments I received, there is one additional reason I started looking at lenses. I am getting lazy! I no longer take my whole bag of tricks everytime I go out for pics. Sometimes I just grab my camera and the lens I usually take is the 18-55. Quite often I regret not having brought my bag if something if just out of reach of the 55. I then end up cropping the snot out of the shot. So when I started looking at lenses I also had in mind one with a larger reach/range, and one which would reduce how often I swap lenses when I do take my whole bag.

[joebranko]

I used to think like you, Joe...I thought it was my lens and all of my cropped Nikons have Nikon lenses plus the ones that came as a kit. Then I started shooting everyday, read articles after articles on improving shots and practice in my chair by the deck sometimes with an article of interest that I printed, following the techniques. I got to know my camera as a result. In short, it wasn't the camera nor the lens. It was me. I keep buying a camera every two years and never get to know it by heart. By the time I barely get to learn the last camera I bought, it is time to buy another camera. Now with shooting everyday, well almost...even of mundane subject, I can pick up any of my cameras now and know what to change in the menu and how I'd like to use it. It does not matter what lens I have on it, since all of my cameras are now equipped with battery, memory card and a lens (for quick pick-up when I see something.) I have also learned how to put my camera in a safe place near the door, just in case. Lens? Does it matter? Of course it does because without it, there is image either and it depends on what you want to catch as a memory.

And oh btw, I like Sigma lenses. A cheaper alternative for me who does not have a gazillion money to spend on Nikon lenses most of the time I felt the urge to purchase glass.

Thanks Izzie. I still have a lot to learn!

[DanK]

Having reflected on this and the comments I received, there is one additional reason I started looking at lenses. I am getting lazy! I no longer take my whole bag of tricks everytime I go out for pics. Sometimes I just grab my camera and the lens I usually take is the 18-55. Quite often I regret not having brought my bag if something if just out of reach of the 55. I then end up cropping the snot out of the shot. So when I started looking at lenses I also had in mind one with a larger reach/range, and one which would reduce how often I swap lenses when I do take my whole bag.

This is helpful. My view is that one should have something specific in mind when replacing a lens, and more reach is certainly a reasonable one.

First, a caveat. As a general rule, the larger the zoom range, the more design compromises are needed, and the more likely you are to have noticeable deficiencies--often at one end or the other, but sometimes elsewhere. There is a reason why many of the best zoom lenses have zoom factors of about 3, like the superb Canon 70-200 lenses. So, be selective if you opt for a lens with a larger zoom range. Read reviews. Some are very good despite the larger zoom factor. Some aren't, and in those cases, you would be trading quality for convenience.

With that caveat, if you don't need a faster lens and want more reach, one thing you might consider is the EF-S 15-85. I used it as a walk-around lens with my 50D for years. Despite the zoom factor of 5.7, it is optically good, and it is very well built. It's heavier than what you now have, however (because it is better built), and it isn't cheap. There are a lot of them around, so you might be able to buy a good one used. I did. This is NOT the 17-85, which I have also owned. the 17-85 is an older model and is optically not as good.

I vaguely recall reading that one of the Canon's with a larger zoom factor is also good, but I have no experience.

[rpcrowe]

Joe wrote: "Quite often I regret not having brought my bag if something if just out of reach of the 55. I then end up cropping the snot out of the shot."

Some lenses will help you retain better IQ when seriously cropped but, that type of cropping will deteriorate the imagery from any lens. Even imagery from the the best of lenses will suffer if you crop extensively.

I don't know what to say about. "getting lazy!" except to mention that the lenses with super long focal ranges are often lacking in quality, especially at the maximum focal lengths.

I can say this though: almost every time I get "lazy" and decide to minimize the gear I take to an event, I end up wishing that I brought some more gear. I have purchased my gear because I want the best imagery possible. Not bringing the gear I have purchased might not allow me to attain that imagery.

However, I don't carry things like my laptop computer when I am out shooting.

[Geoff F]

Not sure how much you are intending to spend, Joe, or how wide you need to go but a little while ago I upgraded by Canon 24-135 for the 24-105 but for various reasons I was never totally happy with that lens, although I still have it.

Then I got the Tamron 24-70 which so far, after 18 months, has proved to be an outstanding lens for me. Stabilised and F2.8 although I rarely shoot towards the wide open end.

[dasmith232]

It sounds like this is really about the limited range of the 18-55 versus the (in)convenience of carrying a whole kit.

What I don't like the "18-55 and 55-250" combination is that the 55mm boundary is often "in the way". In my experience, the 18-55 was often too short, and the 55-250 was often too long. So I got rid of those lenses and got an 18-135. As a walk-around lens it was a very convenient range to work with.

Optically, each of these lenses is in the "consumer" category, which means none of them is stellar. However, used properly, they can produce fine images. When assessing quality, I usually go to "dxomark.com". The numbers there show that the Sigma 18-70 and Canon 18-55 are pretty much in the same ballpark. The Sigma gets slightly better numbers on a couple points, but not enough to be noticeable for mere humans.

Now for the disclaimer...

I'm not trying to encourage you to buy another lens...! And if/when you *do* get in the mode of buying a new lens, you should possibly be looking at some higher end options. Bodies are temporary. Lenses last a lot longer.

[Shadowman]

How much equipment is too much is generally decided by which bag I'll take, how much carting around I think I'll do, and how many cameras I plan to bring. If only bringing one camera it's pretty simple, take as many lenses as I think I'll need and carry the backpack. It's rare for me to take the backpack, usually for small festivals within a two block radius. Carrying two cameras can cut down on the number of lenses I'd even consider, no more than three total and I can get by with either the backpack or a messenger bag. Usually the only reason I'd take three lenses would be to carry the UWA which I don't use as much but when I have it I usually get some splendid shots.

[dasmith232]

... the 24-105 but for various reasons I was never totally happy with that lens, although I still have it...

I got the 24-105 before I had a full-frame camera. It was the allure of an "L" lens that prompted me to get it. I was really disappointed with it. I considered getting rid of it but didn't. Then when I got a full-frame body, it made more sense. It works fine as a walk-around lens.

On the good side, the constant aperture is nice because when I shoot in manual I can quickly dial in any focal length and the exposure is still correct. When in aperture mode, it doesn't matter. On the weak side, it's still a pretty generic lens and the aperture range isn't anything special. But again, it's intended to be a walk-around. As such, it's the default lens that's mounted at any given point in time.

[joebranko]

This is helpful. My view is that one should have something specific in mind when replacing a lens, and more reach is certainly a reasonable one.

First, a caveat. As a general rule, the larger the zoom range, the more design compromises are needed, and the more likely you are to have noticeable deficiencies--often at one end or the other, but sometimes elsewhere. There is a reason why many of the best zoom lenses have zoom factors of about 3, like the superb Canon 70-200 lenses. So, be selective if you opt for a lens with a larger zoom range. Read reviews. Some are very good despite the larger zoom factor. Some aren't, and in those cases, you would be trading quality for convenience.

With that caveat, if you don't need a faster lens and want more reach, one thing you might consider is the EF-S 15-85. I used it as a walk-around lens with my 50D for years. Despite the zoom factor of 5.7, it is optically good, and it is very well built. It's heavier than what you now have, however (because it is better built), and it isn't cheap. There are a lot of them around, so you might be able to buy a good one used. I did. This is NOT the 17-85, which I have also owned. the 17-85 is an older model and is optically not as good.

I vaguely recall reading that one of the Canon's with a larger zoom factor is also good, but I have no experience.

Thanks Dan. I will look at a used 15 85 lens. The new one is certainly pricey!

[joebranko]

How much equipment is too much is generally decided by which bag I'll take, how much carting around I think I'll do, and how many cameras I plan to bring. If only bringing one camera it's pretty simple, take as many lenses as I think I'll need and carry the backpack. It's rare for me to take the backpack, usually for small festivals within a two block radius. Carrying two cameras can cut down on the number of lenses I'd even consider, no more than three total and I can get by with either the backpack or a messenger bag. Usually the only reason I'd take three lenses would be to carry the UWA which I don't use as much but when I have it I usually get some splendid shots.

Thanks John. When I go on a" shoot" I usually take all my lenses ( I don't have that many so no problem). But when I am just going for a walk and want to take a camera, a walk around, just in case I see something interesting, it is usually the 18-55 on it. It is under these circumstances I often wish I had brought another lens or my whole kit!!😤

[joebranko]

It sounds like this is really about the limited range of the 18-55 versus the (in)convenience of carrying a whole kit.

What I don't like the "18-55 and 55-250" combination is that the 55mm boundary is often "in the way". In my experience, the 18-55 was often too short, and the 55-250 was often too long. So I got rid of those lenses and got an 18-135. As a walk-around lens it was a very convenient range to work with.

Optically, each of these lenses is in the "consumer" category, which means none of them is stellar. However, used properly, they can produce fine images. When assessing quality, I usually go to "dxomark.com". The numbers there show that the Sigma 18-70 and Canon 18-55 are pretty much in the same ballpark. The Sigma gets slightly better numbers on a couple points, but not enough to be noticeable for mere humans.

Now for the disclaimer...

I'm not trying to encourage you to buy another lens...! And if/when you *do* get in the mode of buying a new lens, you should possibly be looking at some higher end options. Bodies are temporary. Lenses last a lot longer.

Thanks Dave. This sounds like good advice! Appreciated!

[joebranko]

Joe wrote: "Quite often I regret not having brought my bag if something if just out of reach of the 55. I then end up cropping the snot out of the shot."

Some lenses will help you retain better IQ when seriously cropped but, that type of cropping will deteriorate the imagery from any lens. Even imagery from the the best of lenses will suffer if you crop extensively.

I don't know what to say about. "getting lazy!" except to mention that the lenses with super long focal ranges are often lacking in quality, especially at the maximum focal lengths.

I can say this though: almost every time I get "lazy" and decide to minimize the gear I take to an event, I end up wishing that I brought some more gear. I have purchased my gear because I want the best imagery possible. Not bringing the gear I have purchased might not allow me to attain that imagery.

However, I don't carry things like my laptop computer when I am out shooting.

Thanks Richard. I know that feeling well. If I am going to a specific location or event I will take a!l my gear. Its when I just go for a walk and I grab my camera that's when I feel the need for a better lens. That and when I am out in the winter trying to change !ended....

[joebranko]

Thanks too for the dxomark reference. Very useful!