Canon or Sigma? Thoughts on a new lens...

[shutternutter]

when i got my EOS 77D earlier this year, i thought id be replacing my old compact camera with something better. little did i know i would start loving photography the way i do now. unfortunately, that also means i never thought it would matter that the lens is rather small (EF-S 18-55mm 1:4-5.6 IS STM). i didn't even know what aperture meant....
so, in short, i need a new one. more focal length (not massively more, but i often feel stuck at 55mm), larger aperture also at higher focal lengths (almost never get proper bokeh with the current one, unless i photograph flowers).
i pretty much condensed it down to two, the Canon EF-S 18-135mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS STM and the Sigma 17-70mm 1:2.8-4.0. whereas the canon one definitely has all the focal length i might want, i feel 70mm might be quite alright (i might just be afraid to feel again like i feel atm...). considering aperture, the canon's 3.5 at 18mm is absolutely great and considering it's 5.6 at 135mm, it must be decent around 50ish as well. that said, having the possibility to stay below the aperture values i have at the moment across the range of focal lengths i have atm, as the sigma offers, sounds very tempting...
the price is hardly different, so thats not a criterion to decide on.
i don't know anything about sigma, but it seems to be decent from all i gathered. i reckon there are no compatibility issues?
what do you guys think? it's a big investment for me, so i wanna make sure...
oh, i mostly do street btw, some architecture and random other things that cross my way, have a look here if it helps: 500px.com/max-h
thanks!

[DanK]

Max,

I'm going to give you an answer that is more complicated than you probably want.

First, 70mm isn't all that much more than 55mm. It would be helpful if you could get your hands on any lens that includes 55 and 70mm so you can see whether the difference in angle of view is enough for what you now want.

Second, while there are exceptions to this generalization (and this comparison might be one of them), lenses with large zoom ranges (longest to shortest focal length) often have less optical quality than those with smaller ranges. For example, most of the high-end Canon zooms have a zoom factor of 3 or 4. So in general--but not in every case--the more you go in the direction of one zoom for all uses, the less optical quality you will get.

So, look at detailed reviews of the specific lenses you want before you buy.

This case may be an exception. Look at this site. there are two Sigma 17-70 lenses, and I don't know which you are looking at, but the one I picked seems to be markedly lower quality than the Canon at the short end.

One other issue is that the maximum aperture at the long end affects both cost and weight. The reason so many zooms have variable apertures, like the ones you selected, is that these can be made with narrower glass and at lower cost. A wide aperture at a long length will cost you, given any particular level of quality.

So, my suggestion is that you NOT narrow it down to specific lenses until you know what focal range and minimum aperture you want. Then look at reviews to compare competitors in that range. For example, there are a lot lenses that compete with the Sigma. The Canon you mentioned wouldn't be in that group because of its much longer length.

[xpatUSA]

Max,

I'm going to give you an answer that is more complicated than you probably want.

First, 70mm isn't all that much more than 55mm.
<>
This case may be an exception. Look at this site. there are two Sigma 17-70 lenses, and I don't know which you are looking at, but the one I picked seems to be markedly lower quality than the Canon at the short end.

One other issue is that the maximum aperture at the long end affects both cost and weight. The reason so many zooms have variable apertures, like the ones you selected, is that these can be made with narrower glass and at lower cost.

I had the 17-70mm 'Contemporary' model - it was very good for my purposes, much better than the previous model. I bought it for use with Sigmas top-of-line (at the time) SD1 Merrill 15MP DSLR. I sold it at the same as that camera and kept their 17-50mm constant f/2.8 for my lesser resolution 4.7MP model DSLR.

The 17-50mm is well regarded for it's constant f/2.8.

The 17-70mm 'C' was an upgrade in materials and handling and Sigma's QC.

[Manfred M]

Max - my suggestion would be that you shoot with the kit lens that came with your camera for a while as you figure out how that is that the 18-55mm is limiting your photography. That is essentially what I did when I first got a DSLR. As things turned out, I actually shot at those focal lengths most of the time and what I found limiting was at the bottom end of the scale, so the second lens I bought was a Tokina 11 - 14mm ultra-wide angle. I eventually bought a 55-200mm lens as well, but to be perfectly honest, it ended up being one of my least used lenses until I started getting into shooting people more, where I needed the longer focal lengths for portraiture.

If I had stayed with a crop frame camera, I suspect I would be shooting the 18-55mm most of the time; the lens was quite good and the focal length range I shoot at most often is handled by that lens. Rather than repeating the focal lengths you already own, look at something in the 55 - 200mm or 55 - 300mm range and use both lenses.

[shutternutter]

i figured there was no easy answer to this...
i thought about getting a lens that starts where my current one ends. the reason i decided against that, was that when i do want the higher focal length, it's usally in a quick reaction street setting, i.e. no time for a lens change. maybe something like 35-100 would be an idea, i mostly use the wide angle for architecture and luckily buildings rarely walk away

this is the sigma lens i was looking at:
https://www.amazon.de/Sigma-17-70-Ob...in%3A382661011
seems to be the one in the test you posted, Dan

[Hanginon]

There are no simple answers - which is why many of us have too many lenses!

However, I looked at your photo gallery and, given what you presently shoot, IMHO you should be looking at large aperture lenses of at least f/2.8 to help blow out the background of the people shots.

[DanK]

Thanks to Fred for commenting on the link to your gallery. I hadn't noticed it.

First, you have some very good photos there! Particularly impressive given that you describe yourself as close to a beginner.

I agree with Fred in the case of some of your photos, like lunch break. However, you also have plenty for which a wider aperture would not have been useful because you need a large depth of field, e.g., statue of the unknown tourist and teenage rebellion 2018. This mix leads me back to my default advice for people considering new equipment: start by deciding what specific things you can't do (or can't do well or easily) with your current equipment, rank those, and then think about what will take care of one of the ones that are at the top of your list. Your photos are so varied that I can't guess what that ranking would be. Many of us will have very different rankings.

[rpcrowe]

Choice of a lens is determined the following factors...

1. What and how you shoot.

2. The weight that you are cable of or willing to carry.

3. The amount of money you are able/willing to spend... a secondary factor is whether you are willing to purchase used.

4. A very important factor that is often not considered in the selection of equipment, the final use you will be making of your imagery.

I had to make some decisions regarding lenses for my new/used Sony A6500 since I am not totally happy with the results of my Canon lenses adapted with a Sigma MC-11 which came as part of the used A6500 package on eBay. I decided to use the above parameters to select a set of lenses for that camera.

1. This will not be my primary camera. I will use it to shoot the family and other non-photo oriented activities. I will also use it for traveling when photography is not my primary purpose for the trip. I am not a great fan of UWA and lean towards longer focal lengths.

2. The kit must be small and lightweight. Since I am used to using Canon DSLR cameras with top-line lenses, I naturally researched the top level Sony glass. These lenses are extremely heavy and quite large. Obviously if I wanted a small compact kit, I would need to compromise a bit.

3. Since this is not my primary kit, I won't be selling any Canon gear to fund the purchase of the lenses. Therefore, I would need to keep the costs down and this would mean compromising also.

4. My primary and almost exclusive use for the image from this camera would be to post on various internet sites including social media. I therefore do not need to produce National Geographic quality imagery with this outfit.

My decision for a set of lenses for the A6500, taking in consideration #1-4 above, ended up with these two lenses with a strong possibility of a third lens. I don't like the super zoom concept for several reasons which I will not get into now..

I chose the full frame Sony mirrorless kit lens, 28-70mm f.3.5-5.6 fe OSS as my standard lens. I am used to using that focal range on both a crop sensor and full frame DSLR cameras and I enjoy it quite a bit. The f/3.5-5.6 aperture is a bit slow but I will have that covered, if needed with a third lens. The 28mm side is a bit narrow but, I am not a great wide angle shooter and I have that covered. I like the 70mm side and I got this lens for two hundred U.S. dollars used. This focal range suits my shooting style better than the 16-50mm pancake lens which is the kit lens for the crop sensor Sony mirrorless cameras. So far the lens is functioning great and the AF with the A6500 is terrific (especially compared with the adapted Canon glass).

My wider lens is the Sony 16mm f/2.8 pancake which is a tiny lens but produces reasonable image quality for my needs. This lens weighs an amazing 67 grams. The one hundred dollar used price is also well within my budget considerations.

The weight of the two lens kit including the A6500 camera is quite a bit less than one kilogram and can easily fit in a small camera bag.

I "may" add the Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens to cover my low-light needs. The Sigma 30mm f/1.8 is faster and a bit cheaper and has excellent image quality but, I have talked with people who owned both these lenses and the Sony has more accurate AF. Additionally, at 154 grams, it is just a little more than half the weight of the Sigma and its form factor is much smaller. This third lens will bring the weight of my kit to right at one kilogram

I "think" that I will be happy with this kit but, only time and a lot of images will tell that. However, the concept of camera with a two or three lens kit which weighs about a kilogram is mind boggling to me.

[shutternutter]

There are no simple answers - which is why many of us have too many lenses!

However, I looked at your photo gallery and, given what you presently shoot, IMHO you should be looking at large aperture lenses of at least f/2.8 to help blow out the background of the people shots.

this is exactly what I'm thinking! unfortunately, those are all rather pricey... hoping for cheaper used ones

[shutternutter]

Thanks to Fred for commenting on the link to your gallery. I hadn't noticed it.

First, you have some very good photos there! Particularly impressive given that you describe yourself as close to a beginner.

I agree with Fred in the case of some of your photos, like lunch break. However, you also have plenty for which a wider aperture would not have been useful because you need a large depth of field, e.g., statue of the unknown tourist and teenage rebellion 2018. This mix leads me back to my default advice for people considering new equipment: start by deciding what specific things you can't do (or can't do well or easily) with your current equipment, rank those, and then think about what will take care of one of the ones that are at the top of your list. Your photos are so varied that I can't guess what that ranking would be. Many of us will have very different rankings.

thank you! that#s very good to hear. I suppose the variation is what's making it difficult to choose for me as well. Though, as i understand it, smaller f-stops are tricky to build and therefore expensive, whereas higher ones are not really an issue..? meaning that i could get a lens with f/2.8 (provided i find a pot of gold or don't eat for a week or so) and it would still be able to take shots like teenage rebellion, right? or am i missing something?

[shutternutter]

Choice of a lens is determined the following factors...

1. What and how you shoot.

2. The weight that you are cable of or willing to carry.

3. The amount of money you are able/willing to spend... a secondary factor is whether you are willing to purchase used.

4. A very important factor that is often not considered in the selection of equipment, the final use you will be making of your imagery.

I had to make some decisions regarding lenses for my new/used Sony A6500 since I am not totally happy with the results of my Canon lenses adapted with a Sigma MC-11 which came as part of the used A6500 package on eBay. I decided to use the above parameters to select a set of lenses for that camera.

1. This will not be my primary camera. I will use it to shoot the family and other non-photo oriented activities. I will also use it for traveling when photography is not my primary purpose for the trip. I am not a great fan of UWA and lean towards longer foal lengths.

2. The kit must be small and lightweight. Since I am used to using Canon DSLR cameras with top-line lenses, I naturally researched the top level Sony glass. These lenses are extremely heavy and quite large. Obviously if I wanted a small compact kit, I would need to compromise a bit.

3. Since this is not my primary kit, I won't be selling any Canon gear to fund the purchase of the lenses. Therefore, I would need to keep the costs down and this would mean compromising also.

4. My primary and almost exclusive use for the image from this camera would be to post on various internet sites including social media. I therefore do not need to produce National Geographic quality imagery with this outfit.

My decision for a set of lenses for the A6500, taking in consideration #1-4 above, ended up with these two lenses with a strong possibility of a third lens. I don't like the super zoom concept for several reasons which I will not get into now..

I chose the full frame Sony mirrorless kit lens, 28-70mm f.3.5-5.6 fe OSS as my standard lens. I am used to using that focal range on both a crop sensor and full frame DSLR cameras and I enjoy it quite a bit. The f/3.5-5.6 aperture is a bit slow but I will have that covered, if needed with a third lens. The 28mm side is a bit narrow but, I am not a great wide angle shooter and I have that covered. I like the 70mm side and I got this lens for two hundred U.S. dollars used. This focal range suits my shooting style better than the 16-50mm pancake lens which is the kit lens for the crop sensor Sony mirrorless cameras. So far the lens is functioning great and the AF with the A6500 is terrific (especially compared with the adapted Canon glass).

My wider lens is the Sony 16mm f/2.8 pancake which is a tiny lens but produces reasonable image quality for my needs. This lens weighs an amazing 67 grams. The one hundred dollar used price is also well within my budget considerations.

The weight of the two lens kit including the A6500 camera is quite a bit less than one kilogram and can easily fit in a small camera bag.

I "may" add the Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens to cover my low-light needs. The Sigma 30mm f/1.8 is faster and a bit cheaper and has excellent image quality but, I have talked with people who owned both these lenses and the Sony has more accurate AF. Additionally, at 154 grams, it is just a little more than half the weight of the Sigma and its form factor is much smaller. This third lens will bring the weight of my kit to right at one kilogram

I "think" that I will be happy with this kit but, only time and a lot of images will tell that. However, the concept of camera with a two or three lens kit which weighs about a kilogram is mind boggling to me.

I'm not too bothered by weight, i walked through florence for ten hours one day this summer with quite a heavy rucksack and the camera in hand. so i would probably keep my current kit lens as a UWA lens if the new one should start at a higher focal length.
but that said, it's nice to se the train of thought on a decision like this when it's reached the terminus. it's always such a relief when the decision is finally made. And of course, there are some directions in there as well, so i know which way to switch the tracks. alright, enough of that metaphor now

[DanK]

meaning that i could get a lens with f/2.8 (provided i find a pot of gold or don't eat for a week or so) and it would still be able to take shots like teenage rebellion, right? or am i missing something?

Yes. The wide aperture wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't help. Since you would be shooting at f/5.6-f/11 anyway, the wider aperture would not come into play.

[shutternutter]

i used the (excellent!) comparison tool on the site Dan posted a bit. i focused in on the 24-105 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM for a while until i compared it to the 18-135mm i originally thought about: it seems to be quite awful...
i'm pretty much back to the 18-135, though the review on that site criticizes its bokeh rather sharply and the examples don't look too great either...
there is also a used - excellent condition 18-105 mm f/4L IS USM on amazon for only €609, very tempting. need to decide if i can really afford it atm (i didn't really want to buy one before christmas)
i think, to bring all these things to a conclusion, i will find a place that rents these candidates and try them out for a day to get a better picture (ha, unintended pun, this is my day)

[george013]

i used the (excellent!) comparison tool on the site Dan posted a bit. i focused in on the 24-105 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM for a while until i compared it to the 18-135mm i originally thought about: it seems to be quite awful...
i'm pretty much back to the 18-135, though the review on that site criticizes its bokeh rather sharply and the examples don't look too great either...
there is also a used - excellent condition 18-105 mm f/4L IS USM on amazon for only €609, very tempting. need to decide if i can really afford it atm (i didn't really want to buy one before christmas)
i think, to bring all these things to a conclusion, i will find a place that rents these candidates and try them out for a day to get a better picture (ha, unintended pun, this is my day)

For some more comparison, opticall, you might find this site of interest. http://www.opticallimits.com/. It used to be photozone.de.

George

[rpcrowe]

There are sometimes older lenses which can do a very decent job at quite a bit lower price than the present offerings.

I was given (by an old Navy shipmate) a 28-70mm f/2.8 Tokina ATX Pro. This lens was produced by Tokina on the plans of the 28-70mm f/2.6 Angenieux. Angenieux could not produce it at a cost to be competitive with he Japanese offerings at the time. After Tokina purchased the rights to this lens, they found out that they also could not produce the lens at a competitive price. They watered down the quality of the lens and re-introduced the lesser quality version as a SV (Special Value - which it definitely was not) lens.

Anyway, I really like this lens. It is lighter than the Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L and also lighter than the 24-70mm (the brick) lens. Also it has internal focusing. I find that I use this lens more and more.

I am not specifically recommending this as a lens for you but, simply illustrating that there could be some lenses out there which might be affordable on the used market and which might do the job for you.

[apersson850]

The EF 24-105 mm f/4L IS II USM would give you twice the reach at the long end.

[rpcrowe]

If the 28-70 zoom and 16mm pancake lenses don't cut it. Which they may not because I am very fussy, I would just opt for 3 prime lenses: Sigma 16mm f/1.4, Sony 35mm f/1.8 and Sony 85mm f/1.8. That package along with the A6500 body would weigh in at 1,383 grams and the lenses would cost $1,500 USD. This is more than I want to pay right now but you do get what you pay for.

[shutternutter]

There are sometimes older lenses which can do a very decent job at quite a bit lower price than the present offerings.

I was given (by an old Navy shipmate) a 28-70mm f/2.8 Tokina ATX Pro. This lens was produced by Tokina on the plans of the 28-70mm f/2.6 Angenieux. Angenieux could not produce it at a cost to be competitive with he Japanese offerings at the time. After Tokina purchased the rights to this lens, they found out that they also could not produce the lens at a competitive price. They watered down the quality of the lens and re-introduced the lesser quality version as a SV (Special Value - which it definitely was not) lens.

Anyway, I really like this lens. It is lighter than the Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L and also lighter than the 24-70mm (the brick) lens. Also it has internal focusing. I find that I use this lens more and more.

I am not specifically recommending this as a lens for you but, simply illustrating that there could be some lenses out there which might be affordable on the used market and which might do the job for you.

oh, yeah. i'mdefinitely looking into used and even discontinued models as well. it's just that from the test photos on that comparison site the newer ones seem better (which makes sense). so far, that's all i can go on, since i haven't had the chance to rent a lens yet. i will keep you posted once i've done that tho