Lenses to buy : Canon 17-55 mm and 70-200 mm or a Sigma 18-200 ?

[Pancreas]

Hi,

I am looking to upgrade my lens for Canon 350D. I have a kit lens 18-55 and a sigma 70-300 Macro. Looking to upgrade both lenses. Hoping to get some feedback and direction before spending $$$.

Option 1: Get a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.
Is the IS really necessary for the 17-55mm ?

Option 2: Get a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS.

Cost would be significantly cheaper for Option 2, but I intend to make this investment for the longer term.

Any recommendations ? or other suggestions ?

Thanks

 

[lightning]

Hi,

I am looking to upgrade my lens for Canon 350D. I have a kit lens 18-55 and a sigma 70-300 Macro. Looking to upgrade both lenses. Hoping to get some feedback and direction before spending $$$.

Option 1: Get a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.
Is the IS really necessary for the 17-55mm ?

Option 2: Get a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS.

Cost would be significantly cheaper for Option 2, but I intend to make this investment for the longer term.

Any recommendations ? or other suggestions ?

Thanks

Are you sticking with a 1.6 crop camera for long? Else avoid EFs.

 

[Kensuke]

WOoo ... Option 1 is realli need alots alots of fund .... 17-55 (1400) , 70-200 2.8 IS (2700 )
Dream Lens Combination sia ~

 

[SnapJaX]

my lenses are abt same as urs, i'm looking at a 28-135 IS USM..
maybe u could top urs up with the 70-200 F2.8
Both EF mount too
maybe squeeze in a 50mm 1.8 prime too huh?

 

[Pancreas]

Whoa, looks like everyone is still up on an early Monday. Thanks for the quick reply.

Prob sticking to the 1.6 for now. Haven't thought of that one actually.
Can't the EFs be used if I upgrade the body subsequently ?
Of course if I go for option 1, it'll have to be in stages. So I guess option 2 is out then ?

 

[Pancreas]

my lenses are abt same as urs, i'm looking at a 28-135 IS USM..
maybe u could top urs up with the 70-200 F2.8
Both EF mount too
maybe squeeze in a 50mm 1.8 prime too huh?

The problem with the 28-135mm i feel is that u don't get the wide angle. That is the limitation of the 1.6x crop factor i guess.

 

[StrifeYun]

Hi,

I am looking to upgrade my lens for Canon 350D. I have a kit lens 18-55 and a sigma 70-300 Macro. Looking to upgrade both lenses. Hoping to get some feedback and direction before spending $$$.

Option 1: Get a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.
Is the IS really necessary for the 17-55mm ?

Option 2: Get a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS.

Cost would be significantly cheaper for Option 2, but I intend to make this investment for the longer term.

Any recommendations ? or other suggestions ?

Thanks

IS is reallie a plus, i just got my 17-55 hehe , if u got extra cash, go forit !!
just take not of the "EF-S"

 

[Kensuke]

Til now , 17-55 IS USM still tempted me ...

 

[Pancreas]

Are you sticking with a 1.6 crop camera for long? Else avoid EFs.

Thanks for the reminder. Btw, is EF-S cheaper ?

 

[Venom81]

I dont really like Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 cause u already have e kit lens n Sigma 70-300 which cover the same range. Get 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. Or get 17-40 f4 instead of 17-55 f2.8.

 

[lightning]

Thanks for the reminder. Btw, is EF-S cheaper ?

EFs may not be cheaper, they are just design for 1.6 crop cameras. One example is the 17-55 F2.8, cost almost like an L lens.

 

[mysum]

Hi,

I am looking to upgrade my lens for Canon 350D. I have a kit lens 18-55 and a sigma 70-300 Macro. Looking to upgrade both lenses. Hoping to get some feedback and direction before spending $$$.

Option 1: Get a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.
Is the IS really necessary for the 17-55mm ?

Option 2: Get a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS.

Cost would be significantly cheaper for Option 2, but I intend to make this investment for the longer term.

Any recommendations ? or other suggestions ?

Thanks

Instead of the EF-S 17-55, you can try the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD. It costs almost half and usually at this focal length you'll hardly need the IS, IMHO.

Instead of the 70-200 f/2.8L, you can try going with the Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM - you get it cheaper than the 70-200 and you have the macro capability as well! Quality wise, I think this lens might not be as good as the 70-200 f/2.8L but its an EX class (Sigma's "L lens"), so you can't possibly go wrong with it.

 

[miniUltraman]

I suggest you forget sigma 18-200. I think it is a sky and earth comparison leh.. one is combo f2.8 the other is 3.5-6.3... definitely option 1 rules :bsmilie: you will need a 10-22 to complete the trinity

 

[An drew]

I suggest you forget sigma 18-200. I think it is a sky and earth comparison leh.. one is combo f2.8 the other is 3.5-6.3... definitely option 1 rules :bsmilie: you will need a 10-22 to complete the trinity

Yeah, it is a "sky and earth" comparison. While the 18-200 is a good lens, the 17-55 and 70-200 are excellent lenses. 17-55 is a great choice.

Go with 18-200 only if you have a problem with $, weight & size of lens, or when there is a risk of damage to the lens, travelling, etc.

 

[valice]

Unless you are going to decide to change your camera to a full frame camera within the next 2 years, go ahead with EFS. Don't bother about the extra S. You could shoot so much within this 2 years on your EFS lens.

 

[xunjas]

i would choose to sell off the kit lens n get a 17-55mm @ 1.4K fm cs.com.. kit lens sell @ 70bucks, yr 17-55mm would cost about 1.3K.. gd deal n your range from 17-300mm is almost covered..

 

[Denosha]

I've been using your option 1 on my 20D for almost a year already and I can say it's really a fantastic combo, especially for covering events. F2.8 (both are pretty much sharp to tack sharp wide open at all apertures, at least my copies are) and IS means you really have more flexibility in what you can try (w, w/o flash, long flash sync, longer exposure for motion blur, etc) and as well as in terms of exposure (ability to balance your flash exposure).

I've tried the 18-200 before (non-OS) and although the zoom range is scary, the image quality leaves much to be desired, especially at the longer end >135mm.