17-85 USM, 18-135 or 18-200 canon/sigma


Sep 27, 2010
58
0
0
#1
Hi, im new to club snap seeking advice on which lens to get. I had some photography experience when schooling a couple years back.

I will be getting a canon 40D body soon. Im trying to stick buying one lens (2nd hand) only due to tight budget.

Canidates:
17-85 IS USM (abt 400)
18-135 IS (abt 500)
18-200 IS canon (abt 800) or sigma (500-600?)
other suggestions welcomed

my main concern is if i shd forgo the USM of 17-85 and some cash to get more zoom. I might be interested in taking some sports shots too.

And does anyone knows their min. focusing range? Might be adding a close-up filter for macro shots.

Thanks all!!
 

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#2
my recommendation would be, 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. should be about $500 for both.

as for sports, as long whatever you are shooting is brightly lit as in by floodlights..good to go. eg, the recent F1. for those dimly lit sport halls, be prepared to max out the iso and as slow shutter speed as possible.
 

Sep 27, 2010
58
0
0
#3
i tot of that too. but i tink i'll prefer the convenience of 18-135. 135mm is abt 4x optical zoom? tat's quite enough for me.
besides i dun realli like the 18-55 when i used it in my schooling days. not that its bad but i prefer a bit more zoom w/o changin lenses. but thanks for ur suggestion =)
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#4
i tot of that too. but i tink i'll prefer the convenience of 18-135. 135mm is abt 4x optical zoom? tat's quite enough for me.
besides i dun realli like the 18-55 when i used it in my schooling days. not that its bad but i prefer a bit more zoom w/o changin lenses. but thanks for ur suggestion =)
you also need to look at the IQ of the lenses instead of just the range of focal length it gives you.

So what kind of sports are you planning to shoot? It matters actually.

And forget about how many 'x' zoom... that is a term used to wow consumers... just talk about absolute focal lengths. that is more accurate.
 

Last edited:

yc2005

New Member
May 14, 2009
698
0
0
#5
I would think the best all-in-one lens is the Canon 18-200mm.

The lenses specs, you can look HERE
 

Sep 27, 2010
58
0
0
#6
you also need to look at the IQ of the lenses instead of just the range of focal length it gives you.

So what kind of sports are you planning to shoot? It matters actually.

And forget about how many 'x' zoom... that is a term used to wow consumers... just talk about absolute focal lengths. that is more accurate.
wad sports? probably street soccer or badminton. so the range isn't tat impt. USM might b more useful. then again the range is really a good to have.

As for the "x" zoom its easier to see translate to wad u see in a compact.
I would think the best all-in-one lens is the Canon 18-200mm.

The lenses specs, you can look HERE
i hav to agree its e best all in 1. but also e most expensive. i need to find out if i need tat much zoom.



Btw is the barrel distortion in 18-200 serious?
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#7
wad sports? probably street soccer or badminton. so the range isn't tat impt. USM might b more useful. then again the range is really a good to have.

As for the "x" zoom its easier to see translate to wad u see in a compact.
compact zoom usually starts at 28mm or 35mm (film equiv). So you can still relate.

In DSLR lenses, it can start from anywhere. 100-500mm = 5x zoom. 18-135mm = 7.5x zoom. 10-20mm = 2x zoom. So which lens has more zoom? :dunno: can mean different thing to different people.

Street soccer mostly will be in good light since it is mostly played in the day? hopefully, so any lens will do well here. For badminton, if it is indoors, it will be tough for freeze movement with some of these lenses due to lower light. In which case you will need F2.8 lenses and at the same time bump up ISO.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#8
wad sports? probably street soccer or badminton. so the range isn't tat impt. USM might b more useful. then again the range is really a good to have.

As for the "x" zoom its easier to see translate to wad u see in a compact.


i hav to agree its e best all in 1. but also e most expensive. i need to find out if i need tat much zoom.



Btw is the barrel distortion in 18-200 serious?
why do you say USM is more useful?
 

Sep 27, 2010
58
0
0
#10
In DSLR lenses, it can start from anywhere. 100-500mm = 5x zoom. 18-135mm = 7.5x zoom. 10-20mm = 2x zoom. So which lens has more zoom? :dunno: can mean different thing to different people.

Street soccer mostly will be in good light since it is mostly played in the day? hopefully, so any lens will do well here. For badminton, if it is indoors, it will be tough for freeze movement with some of these lenses due to lower light. In which case you will need F2.8 lenses and at the same time bump up ISO.
ok lets ignore e zoom part. f2.8 isnt cheap... but in this case u shd b suggesting tamron 17-50? 28-75 means i need another wide angle lens.

btw does sigma 18-200 support ETTL?
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#11
ok lets ignore e zoom part. f2.8 isnt cheap... but in this case u shd b suggesting tamron 17-50? 28-75 means i need another wide angle lens.

btw does sigma 18-200 support ETTL?
There is no such thing as cheap and fast lenses. The faster the lens (the bigger the aperture), the bigger the glass elements are required in the lens. With bigger glass elements, the lens will be bigger as well. Costs will shoot up naturally.

Try 17-50/2.8 for now if budget is a concern. If you need more range, add a 50-150/2.8 and you are good to go.

yes 18-200 support e-ttl I think. But problem is if you have a strong enough flash to shoot at distant subjects.. and if flash is even allowed during matches especially competitions.
 

Last edited:
Sep 27, 2010
58
0
0
#12
There is no such thing as cheap and fast lenses. The faster the lens (the bigger the aperture), the bigger the glass elements are required in the lens. With bigger glass elements, the lens will be bigger as well. Costs will shoot up naturally.

Try 17-50/2.8 for now if budget is a concern. If you need more range, add a 50-150/2.8 and you are good to go.

yes 18-200 support e-ttl I think. But problem is if you have a strong enough flash to shoot at distant subjects.. and if flash is even allowed during matches especially competitions.
tat i know. so i'm tryin 2 squeeze out e best out of my budget. flash is more for event photography. besides no 1 likes having a flash firing at u when ur tryin 2 kick e ball. 17-50 sounds gd.
 

enzeru21

New Member
Apr 7, 2010
1,494
0
0
upper thomson
#13
if you are really unsure then you really need to try for urself... bcos for us, we've probably tried it and found what we would like to use...

i wouldn't buy any of the 3 choices that you mentioned.. bcos i would have something else i'm more comfortable with...

the convenience of not having to change lens may seem like a plus to some.. but it turns out to be a minus for others...

if you really are tight on budget then get the tamron 17-50 2.8... its the 2nd easiest solution...

what's the 1st? simple. don't buy anything.
 

Sep 27, 2010
58
0
0
#14
U hav a point. But i feel the zoom's too little. Btw i forgot 2 mention tat i'm gg for an overseas trip soon. So i'll be expecting wide angle shots?
 

enzeru21

New Member
Apr 7, 2010
1,494
0
0
upper thomson
#15
U hav a point. But i feel the zoom's too little. Btw i forgot 2 mention tat i'm gg for an overseas trip soon. So i'll be expecting wide angle shots?
17 is wide enough for most people.. and its about the widest for the kinda zoom lens you are looking at... if not it will be 10-22, 12-24 that kinda range.. which defeats ur purpose of having one lens only right??

the focal lenght range for 17-50 is good enough for everyday use too.. many a times people buy a long zoom like a 18-200 then realise that they seldom use the 200 range. if you are concerned about the image quality and shooting without flash in places where either flash is not allowed or it will spoil the pic.. then the f2.8 on the tamron will give u results that shine more than the 18-200...

if you are not so bothered about the image quality and the ambient light photography then by all means get the 18-200.. it will let you take that picture of a church tower while standing far away etc..

the 17-50 is good in the sense it fits an everyday usage pattern.. if i wanted to zoom i would just walk closer.. and get as close as possible...
 

maldito

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2009
1,609
0
36
#17
I have both the 18-200 and 18-135 before. I was surprised to find out that the tele end of 18-200 is almost the same as 18-135.
 

Sep 27, 2010
58
0
0
#18
Enzeru: thanks for ur advice. But somehow i feel tat 17-50 isn't wad i'm lookin for. I tink i'll rather sacrifice f2.8 for more zoom. I guess i juz need to accept tat with my sad budget i cant get everything i want, i can always rent a 17-55 or 24-70 if i do need to take indoor sports shots.

Anson: thanks ur pics r pretty gd =)

Maldito: yar i noticed it. Not very worth it to pay an extra 400 for more zoom tat i'm not even sure i'll use sufficiently. N since i'll probably do more wide angle shots it might make more sense 2 get less zoom for less distortion lol.

Come to tink of it i'm being too picky n too optimistic on how far my budget can stretch...
 

Last edited:

enzeru21

New Member
Apr 7, 2010
1,494
0
0
upper thomson
#19
Enzeru: thanks for ur advice. But somehow i feel tat 17-50 isn't wad i'm lookin for. I tink i'll rather sacrifice f2.8 for more zoom. I guess i juz need to accept tat with my sad budget i cant get everything i want, i can always rent a 17-55 or 24-70 if i do need to take indoor sports shots.

QUOTE]

yes you can always rent the lens when u need it... then if thats the case then by all means go with something that suits your shooting style.. a convenient superzoom... go try the different options at a shop and test the range, the size and weight ratio, the image, the aperture and its effect in low light or at full zoom...

this will give you a better idea whether you can accept the lens.. and which one to get..

check the prices at the price guide section in the forum, so that you don't get ripped off.. and only go to the shops recommended, please NOT TO SIM LIM SQ...

thats all i can say.. have fun~!
 

Sep 27, 2010
58
0
0
#20
yes you can always rent the lens when u need it... then if thats the case then by all means go with something that suits your shooting style.. a convenient superzoom... go try the different options at a shop and test the range, the size and weight ratio, the image, the aperture and its effect in low light or at full zoom...

this will give you a better idea whether you can accept the lens.. and which one to get..

check the prices at the price guide section in the forum, so that you don't get ripped off.. and only go to the shops recommended, please NOT TO SIM LIM SQ...

thats all i can say.. have fun~!
Ok thanks for your advice. But heard OP at sls gives quite reasonable price. i'll keep u all updated =)
 

Top Bottom