Need advice/suggestion on lens


Oct 19, 2009
1,669
0
0
#1
Hi everyone,

I've start a new thread to seek advices, suggestions and opinions on the lens that I'm intending to get.

Canon EF-S 15-85mm (f/3.5-5.6)
This lens is wide, and far focal length enough for a Landscape and a Walkabout shoot, but to me, it's quite costly, around $1k ++.

Tamron 17-50 (f/2.8 Constant)
Yes, this price is pretty affordable for me, $600ish. Pretty wide for Landscape and a Walkabout, but I'm afraid about the focal length that it's pretty short for far subject.

Sigma 17-70 (f/2.8-4.5) Macro
This seems good, cost around $580ish. Wide is okay for me, Walkabout is quite a far focal length for me, and a additional feature of macro. But I'm afraid cos this lens isn't popular, and I wonder what's the pros and cons about this lens.

Hope to seek good opinions on this lenses.
 

Nov 14, 2009
197
0
0
Upper Bukit Timah
#2
You seem to have two primary concerns: budget, and focal length - specifically at the telephoto end.

Your sign-off states you have an 18-135mm kit. You should look through the EXIF of the photos that you shot with this lens and see which is your most common focal length that you shoot at. That will provide you with a gauge of whether you need the extra reach. I am just curious though; apart from the extra 3mm at the WA end, you're giving up telephoto range if you were to get the 15-85mm. I'm making this observation based on your two key concerns as stated in your questions.

Focal length is an area that only you can decide for yourself on whether it suits your needs. If you're talking about image quality, I believe you can easily find sample images of these lenses available online. You can try www.flickriver.com if you haven't done so already. Ultimately, you decide whether the quality justifies the price tag, too.
 

Oct 19, 2009
1,669
0
0
#3
You seem to have two primary concerns: budget, and focal length - specifically at the telephoto end.

Your sign-off states you have an 18-135mm kit. You should look through the EXIF of the photos that you shot with this lens and see which is your most common focal length that you shoot at. That will provide you with a gauge of whether you need the extra reach. I am just curious though; apart from the extra 3mm at the WA end, you're giving up telephoto range if you were to get the 15-85mm. I'm making this observation based on your two key concerns as stated in your questions.

Focal length is an area that only you can decide for yourself on whether it suits your needs. If you're talking about image quality, I believe you can easily find sample images of these lenses available online. You can try www.flickriver.com if you haven't done so already. Ultimately, you decide whether the quality justifies the price tag, too.
Thanks a thousand. The link you've put down is awesome.

And yes, you are right, what I'm looking at is the Wide V.S Extra Reach V.S Budget.

I'll read up more about it and then shortlist to my purchase.

Once again, thanks very much.

Will appreciate if there's any users of the 3 lens stated above to share their opinions with me. :thumbsup:
 

voxies09

New Member
Apr 11, 2010
651
0
0
Singapore
#4
1. you have to fix the focal length that you like
2. fixed the aperture
3. fixed the budget
4. check the review and see sample photo
 

ovaltinemilo

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,819
0
0
Sin jia Po lah
#5
I feel sigma 17-70mm is rather good for general walk about and the shorter min focus distance compared to the kit lens is rather useful. However, at 17mm, the distortion is higher than the 18mm kit lens...this can b corrected during pp. Overall, it's faster than the kit lens and thus more useful in low light condition.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#6
I do think standard large-aperture zoom is good value, coupled with cheap telephoto.
For example, 17-50/2.8 and 55-200.

Of course this is just my opinion :)
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,645
63
48
lil red dot
#7
Or may I suggest you go for a UWA and keep your 18-135. If you shoot landscapes, UWA is very fun...
Tokina 11-16, 12-24, Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-20. You pick.
 

cleonbus

Deregistered
Nov 18, 2006
7,060
0
0
Kuala Lumpur
#9
Hi everyone,

I've start a new thread to seek advices, suggestions and opinions on the lens that I'm intending to get.

Canon EF-S 15-85mm (f/3.5-5.6)
This lens is wide, and far focal length enough for a Landscape and a Walkabout shoot, but to me, it's quite costly, around $1k ++.

Tamron 17-50 (f/2.8 Constant)
Yes, this price is pretty affordable for me, $600ish. Pretty wide for Landscape and a Walkabout, but I'm afraid about the focal length that it's pretty short for far subject.

Sigma 17-70 (f/2.8-4.5) Macro
This seems good, cost around $580ish. Wide is okay for me, Walkabout is quite a far focal length for me, and a additional feature of macro. But I'm afraid cos this lens isn't popular, and I wonder what's the pros and cons about this lens.

Hope to seek good opinions on this lenses.
Get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f2.8:thumbsup:
 

Oct 19, 2009
1,669
0
0
#12
I feel sigma 17-70mm is rather good for general walk about and the shorter min focus distance compared to the kit lens is rather useful. However, at 17mm, the distortion is higher than the 18mm kit lens...this can b corrected during pp. Overall, it's faster than the kit lens and thus more useful in low light condition.
I see I see, Yup that's why I'm seeing the Sigma 17-70.. looks pretty good to me..

Or may I suggest you go for a UWA and keep your 18-135. If you shoot landscapes, UWA is very fun...
Tokina 11-16, 12-24, Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-20. You pick.
I agree with you. I was loaned a Tokina 10-17 fisheye from my neighbour for a week. That is awesome especially when you are at 10mm, however, it's not a pure wide angle.

Get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f2.8:thumbsup:
Cleon, I don't zoom a lot.. so probably i don't need a 70-200, maybe if i will to get a zoom, i will get a 55-250.
poisonous :devil:, but i agree with you :)
haha:) so where's the antidote ??
 

Numnumball

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2009
13,899
0
0
Central
#13
i will def recommend a UWA, like ZCA andDD123, in the likes of Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16 if the budget permits :)
 

Scoop

New Member
Oct 27, 2009
718
0
0
Singapore
#14
Stick with your 18-135 if you're comfortable with the variable aperture. Is that a concern for you? And yes, a UWA will open up a whole new world of photography. You should consider that if you're doing slot of walkaround shooting.. :)
 

Oct 19, 2009
1,669
0
0
#15
Thanks for the advices and suggestion guys.

Decided to stick back to my EF-S 18-135, and I'll be saving up for a Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22.
 

Top Bottom