hi, planning to get a wide angle and a telephoto lens, but not sure which 1 to get. im using 40D and currently only got 50mm f1.8 . so which 1 would u recommend from the following point of view:

Wide angle:
1. performance wise?
2. budget wise?

Telephoto:
1. performance wise?
2. budget wise?

thx

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM

Canon 100-400mmL IS USM

Lol. Canon 100-400mm L IS budget wise meh?

wrong section. should be in trading guides..

anyway, how much is your budget first? and whats the purpose of buying it?

get a sigma 10-20mm

haha... 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens...
suits your 40D the most...

seconded! superb lens. i like the color produced by it.

Opps, I missed that word.
I'd suggest the Sigma 70-300mm APO then.

Sigma is 10-20mm
Tokina is 12-24mm

Sigma 10-20mm gets my vote.

But Tokina and Sigma 12-24 will support full frame.

sigma oso got 12-24mm

oops, sorry about that Never thought they too have a 12-24mm. Thought that only Tokina has.

but for build quality, i'd take Tokina's

what about 70-200mm f4 L

where VoiP? he should give advice

TheVOIP sure recommend his mighty 85mm F1.2L and the EF1200mm with alien technology lar....

But seriously for a standard telezoom, try the new EFS 55-250 IS lens if on budget. If budget is healthy, then either the EF70-200 F4L or the EF/S70-300mm IS.

For a wide angle, if very low on budget then get the EFS18-55 IS kit lens, if budget better then the EF17-85 IS USM and better one the EF17-40 F4L. If you want third party, then either Sigma 17-50 F2.8 EX, 24-70 F2.8 EX DG or the Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

Better yet, just buy one lens. Just get the Sigma 18-200mm OS. One price for all and for good quality. No need think so much.

sigma 10-20mm huh... hmm... sounds good, price not bad too.

i'm also considering sigma 18-200mm, but i've read some not-so-good reviews about it, so not really convinced to get it yet... and i would prefer to get a dedicated lens for wide angle and another 1 for telephoto

Yup as always you don't get the best of optics in an all in one package. Just the convenience. I heard the bokeh is not that good but the OS is generally very promising. Sigma's 10-20mm is very good in my opinion. 'Fish eye' like lens. I just went to Key Color yesterday to take a look at that one. Very solidly built. But no HSM for Canon one (according to the guy). But I am very interested with the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DG. The price is right and the built is also very good. But the filter thread is larger than 77mm though.

for pictures taken with 18-200 OS, can always refer to my gallery.

---

Added on February 23, 2008, 3:05 pm

too bad no Tokina lens that's lesser than 12mm.

---

Added on February 23, 2008, 3:08 pm

yup. generally image quality drops when the lens covers more range.

the 18-200 OS is great for that price in terms of convenience.

the bokeh outcome may not satisfy everyone BUT hey, who cares as long as picture looks nice. as Ken Rockwell said about bokeh "I have no idea why people make this so complicated. Just use what looks good."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/bokeh-comparison.htm

Example of the 18-200 OS's bokeh (PP done is resize, sharpen and watermark)

when it comes to marketing strategy, a good bokeh is not good enuff unless u spend more.

or do you mean "you need to pay more for good bokeh"?

regardless, IMO good bokeh is subjective. to me it's really preferential.

Yeah. Thats the advice I took when I was interested with the EF17-85 IS USM. It was a good lens but was foiled with bad reputation regarding distortions and CA. But it is a very good lens to be honest. Same goes to the Sigma 18-200mm OS. Very convenient all in one travel lens. In fact very usable. Don't listen to those with very very high expectation photographers hahaha! Those are pros and they will always recommend impossible budgets so lets get back down and nearer to Earth. kekekeke!

i mean sometimes we need to make use what we have to the very best instead of spending more unnecessarily. contrary to marketing strategy belief

yup! sound advice david, sound advice.

very simple way is to know your budget. see what people shot and you'll know your next purchase.

---

Added on February 23, 2008, 3:30 pm

ahh now i understand. thank you for clarifying.

totally agreed. it's exactly what i practise. i only upgrade when i feel limited or when i have some requirement that my current arsenal can't provide. i don't get poisoned.

hey goldfries, which photos in ur gallery were shot using sigma 18-200? all of them??

I second that. But sometimes there are those who have deep pockets that spend unnecessarily without utilizing them to its true potential. We choose which side we want to be in. 3rd party lenses can do the job too.

bird park gallery would be the one where 100% of the shots are from the 18-200.

I agree with 3rd party lenses. It all depends on value. Canon/Nikon has this focal range, the Sigma/Tamron/Tokina also has them. Better, they put in internal focusing, low dispersion glass (at least one glass molded one), aspherical glass (at least one) and include a hood for each of their products. Sometimes I feel these lenses has better CA and flare control than Canon/Nikon ones. These 3rd party manufacturers are beginning to catch up with better focusing motor especially Sigma with its HSM + FTM and the recent introduction of OS and VC for lens stabilization. Best thing is they come at a nice attractive price.

The only down point is reliability and consistency. Some of these lenses are not built as tough as some L lenses of the Canon. Some may be sharp with a certain body but when you upgrade to another body, it might require calibration. You need to send them to 3rd party manufacturers to do it. In this case, you camera body must go in too. I don't know if Canon will object to this or not but thats what I know. Then comes with the issue of compatibility with AF bodies. Some might require re-chip, but that is considered anti-competitive in business tactics if they purposely change their AF wiring on every new body... so I'm not sure if this is still the case.

So if you are buying a new 3rd party lens, that is not a problem because you can always try before buying. The concern only happens when you upgrade your body. No guarantee you will get the same performance because calibration might be slightly off. So you can try each and every body until you find a good combination before committing your purchase lor...

In my opinion, any lens will do as long as they have the focal range and aperture we require, has good optics performance and other features and all comes at an attractive price. Don't care if it is from Canon/Nikon/Tokina/Tamron/Sigma... who can give me this things, I'll buy from them. Consumers always get the most value for money and quality goods.

tadasu, u wanna get wide or ultrawide?

if u wanna buy canon lens,
cheap solution: kit lens 18-55 / new 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS
all are EFS lens

L series: 17-40L + 70-200L F4
both are EF lens

for 3rd party, i'm not sure. but i think sigma 18-200 really kinda cool. no need so 'mafan' changing lens

edited: If u wanna play with F2.8, go for 3rd party. canon F2.8 cost a bomb

on the other hand there's the 17-50 f2.8 from tamron. around RM 1.3k

the best 3rd party wide/portrait zoom lens

Yeah and I just traded it for an EF17-85 IS USM. Cause I wanted to try IS. Hehehehehe

EF 17-85 IS USM is a good lens too. Hows the build quality though?

Tamron 17-50 has IS with Alpha body

You are from Seremban? Which part?
Might ask you to join us if we have any outings
valho and weileongz from Seremban too.

hehe. want to highlight IS, highlight also Pentax la.

If i want to upgrade 18-55mm, EF 17-40L and tamron 17-50 f/2.8 are two of the best choices? Of course considering the cost also..

Any comments? I feel like upgrading my kitlens.

I went for the 17-40 F4 L. Loving it......

Great build and picture quality.

What's your budget?

Budget should be around RM1k-3k.

Of course, I wish to hear suggestions on cheap and good performance stuff. Currently I feel like buying Tamron 17-50, just wish to hear if there are other options comparing the performance and price wise to tamron 17-50

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is sharp and good, however, if you can afford the Canon 17-40mm f4 L, go for it

optical quality sure different wan. 17-40L also can be used on full frame and transforms to being like an ultra-wide angle.

Build quality is satisfactory lar. Don't expect tank-like built hehehe. That one you need to go for the Canon EF17-40 F4L. The most popular and affordable wide-angle lens for crop cameras and FF cameras. A lot of 30D/400D owners have this in their inventory.

Anyway the 17-85's zoom barrel is a little loose and there is some sign of zoom creep. If you point it down, it won't creep down but if you give it a little twist, it would slightly. There is no zoom lock like the Tamron even though it does not creep at all. Its zoom barrel is very tight and damped. The downside of the 17-85 is mostly the dust problem, just like the popular 17-55 IS USM. There is no sealing in between the zoom barrel cams. Dust can stick on it and when you zoom in or out, it will sweep the dust in. So the only solution to this is to religiously clean/wipe the zoom barrel and keep it clean always. FORTUNATELY, dust on the elements (if they did get in) does not lowers your IQ and composition unlike having dusts on the sensor. That is until you stop down to very very low apertures like F15 and above. Then again, at this levels you more likely to suffer from light diffraction issues. I was told that Canon Malaysia is unable to service lens with dusts because of the lack of a proper clean room. Can anyone clarify?

Lastly, the Tamron is lighter and more rigid that the 17-85. The 17-85 is heavier because of the IS. Both have metal mounts and both are made of high quality plastics on the structural barrel. If you are using Canon bodies, the 17-85's IS can let you do a lot of things. If you are on Sony/Olympus/Pentax bodies with image stabilization built-in then the Tamron is a better choice. Because Tamron is better at CA, zoom distortion and flare control. But you loose longer range to the 85mm. The 17-85 range is very useful as a walkaround lens. I think my 70-200 is gonna sit a little longer in the bag every time.

If you are interested in 3rd party lenses in this popular 17-50mm range, then be sure to check out Sigma EX and Tokina too. I was told (at least given the impression) that the Tokina has a better built while the Tamron has better optics and affordability.

If you are willing to spend or stretch to that budget of yours, then better get reliability and consistency. You are using Canon right? Then the EFS17-55mm F2.8 IS USM is a great lens. TheVOIP can easily say good things about it. Otherwise the EFS17-85mm F4-5.6 IS USM can be a good lens to, BUT only if you got a good flash.

IF you are planning to invest on a FF body in the near future, then better stick to fundamentals: The Canon EF17-40 F4L. Others on the list are Canon EF24-70mm F2.8 USM and Canon EF24-105 F4L IS USM. A lot more expensive but a lot more convenient when you change bodies. ONLY buy these if you are serious into photography. Cause you're gonna get a hole in the pocket.