Upgrade lenses?

Anthony F. · 08-04-2004, 03:33 PM

I'm starting to get the itch to upgrade the lenses for my Canon Rebel 2K. Currently I have the stock Canon 28-80 and 80-200 set--no USM or L series etc, just the basics--and a Sigma 105 (2.8) macro EX that I use for portraits and macro work. The Sigma's a keeper, but I also want to extend the range to a long zoom and maybe pick up a slightly wider max aperture. I'm considering a combination of the Sigma 24-135 (2.8-4.5) and 135-400 (4.5-5.6). These are not EX series, but are aspherical. Would this be a wise move or is this more of a "side-grade" than an upgrade? I'd like not to have to add a third lens (e.g. 200-400), but am concerned about the extra weight and expense of the Sigma set relative to any improvement in picture quality and convenience. Any thoughts? Has anyone else done this?

Thanks.

Man-Fai Wong · 08-04-2004, 03:58 PM

Don't have any real experience w/ this, but you might find these links helpful as starting points at the very least:

http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html

http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

If nobody else can offer more help here, you might also want to check the Canon SLR Lens forum over in dpreview.com. You might find some helpful opinions and additional links over there although I suspect most folks there are too steeped in digital (w/ 1.6x crop factor) and/or too obsessed w/ L lenses to be too much help.

With Sigma lenses, they'll most likely steer you only to the EX series w/ maybe the non-EX 70-300 teles as inexpensive options -- on a D-Rebel/10D, 70-300 translates to ~110-480mm in 35mm equiv terms. For non-L Canon's, they might also steer you to the various IS lenses.

One more thing. Don't know what your future plans are, but if you intend to go digital in the forseeable future, you might want to plan these upgrades w/ that in mind. In particular, the lower end Canon bodies are using 1.6x crop factor, which effectively multiplies the focal length by 1.6x in practice. The high end ones (that cost >$4K right now) are using 1.3x and full frame, ie. 1.3x factor and no factor respectively. Nobody knows when/if Canon will change their scheme for these varying crop factors, but it's probably safe to say that it probably won't happen quite that soon although that could certainly change w/ whatever they announce for the expected 10D replacement later this year.

_Man_

John Kilroy · 08-05-2004, 09:27 AM

Have you considered upgrading to Canon glass? You probably don't see much difference between your 28-80 and the Sigma lenses, but once you move into Canon's mid-range lenses from the so-called "kit" lenses (like the 28-80 that they sell with the body) you really start to see a difference in auto-focus speed. Plus the quality of the glass is much better, although you need to enlarge beyond 4x6 to see it in your images for the most part. Corner sharpness is the first place you'll see an improvement (at the edges of your image).

I use all Canon glass, and when I put a Sigma on my body, I can tell a difference in performance, mostly in auto-focus speed (the Sigmas hunt more, and are generally slower to focus, especially in AI servo). Of course if you're not photographing fast action, like sports or kids, and are not enlarging past 4x6, then the Sigmas are good cheap alternatives. I see a lot of them hanging off SLRs, so they must be doing something right!

JK

Scott Kimball · 08-05-2004, 12:53 PM

As someone mentioned, if you might possibly upgrade to a Canon DSLR, look into some wide angle glass to add to your collection. While the 1.6 crop factor of this range of DSLRs doesn't actually offer more magnification, it does necessitate the use of wider angle lenses due to cropping.

I highly recommend the Canon 17-40mm f4 "L" series lens. It's my workhorse lens, and is on the camera (a Canon 10D) 80% of the time (of course, I generally do landscape photography).

If you want extreme telephoto, you really need to read up on reviews for specific lenses. Third party super-teles are a hit or miss experience. I have good luck just typing in the lens name in Google, which then points me to many reviews of that particular lens. Sigma, for instance, has made many lenses which are highly regarded. Some of their models, however, are a disappointment.

Consider what you need a super-telephoto lens for, and if f5.6 will be fast enough for you at the extremes. Next on my shopping list is a Canon 300mm prime "L" series f4... but, at over $1000, it's on next year's purchase list.

Lenses are an investment... they last longer than the camera bodies, and are transferrable to newer models by the same manufacturer. Don't skimp. Also, if you purchase a premium "L" series and decide later that it's not the lens for you, there is a strong secondary market for these lenses, so you could sell them easily with little loss (compared to "kit" lenses).

-Scott

Anthony F. · 08-05-2004, 05:58 PM

Thanks for the advice above. It's always difficult to figure out the price point for lenses--I'm not a professional, so I feel like I need to spend enough time in the hobby to "earn" the upgrade (suppose that's like HT also).

I've considered Canon lenses, but they're always much more expensive than equivalent (length) 3rd party lenses. At the same time I have to admit that my sigma lens can be darned slow at auto focus. I know cheaping out means buying twice, but I'm just searching still for the right price/performance/usage balance.

New question, also related to Sigma lenses. Looking at some of the links above there was mention of a 18-125mm "digital" lens that was pretty popular. Is there anything particularly "digital" about this lens? Would this work for a film SLR at those focal lengths?

Maybe next I'll try shopping for magic beans or play some three-card monty.

**HTF Ads**

Scott Kimball · 08-05-2004, 10:20 PM

Not sure, but I think some manufacturers are coming out with zoom lenses with a shorter-than-usual low end focal length and slapping the word "digital" on them - to indicate that they somewhat compensate for the usual 1.6 digital crop by being a bit wider.

For wide zooms, Sigma does have a respected 17-35mm f2.8, a fast lens that is supposedly nice and sharp, and quite a bit cheaper than Canon's 17-40mm f4 L.

Personally, I'd be careful with the lenses that offer an extreme range (-18-125+), from very wide to moderate telephoto. They tend to make compromises in image quality - less sharpness, vignetting, etc. While it's nice to have one lens that can do it all, you have to decide what compromises you're willing to make to get the extreme zoom range.

Most moderate sized cities have great camera shops with very knowledgeable people... I'm not talking about your local Ritz franchise... a locally owned store that sells darkroom equipment usually has serious photographers there who looovve to talk lenses.

Also, like I mentioned, Google is your friend. I often go to B&H's website and check a lens selection, and Google anything that looks interesting in order to read reviews. There are some good third party lenses out there, but check them out first.

-Scott

Cameron Yee · 02-28-2006, 03:14 PM

So I'm dragging up this thread since I see names of a few people I definitely want input from.

I'm looking to upgrade my general purpose lens and have casually zeroed in on the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L. My subject matter is pretty diverse, but generally I need to respond quickly (lately I've been shooting alot of kids and concerts). I am sort of considering going the prime route, mainly for the combination of pricing, optical quality and greater max. apertures, but I can think of a number of times when I won't have the luxury of moving back/forward or switching lenses to get a shot. So I guess I just need feedback on the Canon and some other options I may have missed. Not really interested in the "digital" lenses because I'd like to think I'll someday have a full frame DSLR. I also kind of looked at the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 but at about twice the price as the other I didn't find anything to sway me over.

Scott Kimball · 02-28-2006, 04:31 PM

As much as I love the 17-40 f/4L, if you're looking for a general purpose lens and will be shooting kids and concerts, I think you'll want something with more reach.

What lens are you upgrading from? Are you replacing or complementing?

The 17-40L is great for landscapes, but isn't the best choice for portraits and is a poor choice for much that you may encounter. If your existing lens is still serviceable, gives good results - and gives a focal length out to 85-105mm or so, then the 17-40 would be a good second lens to complement it.

My general purpose medium zoom is a EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. It was my first Canon lens, and I got a deal on it with a camera (a 10D). It's decently sharp, but I think I'd choose a 28-105 if I were buying now, to complement the 17-40.

For my use:
When I can only bring one lens (difficult hikes and climbs), I bring only the 17-40 - but that's because I shoot more landscapes than anything.

When I can carry the gear, I bring the 17-40, 24-85 and 300mm f/4L, plus a 1.4x extender. That way, I'm set for landscapes, portraits and wildlife with equipment that will fit in my backpack and weigh in at under 10 lbs.

-Scott

Cameron Yee · 02-28-2006, 04:48 PM

I've been using the kit lens that came with the Rebel, so it would be a replacement. My other lenses are a Canon 50mm f/1.8 (which is currently my favorite for the speed and shallow DOF) and a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6. My ultimate goal is to replace the latter with a Canon zoom telephoto, probably IS. The 17-40 is right within the range I work most often (forgot to mention I also do a fair amount of event stuff), but wish it were faster (hence my considertion of the primes). But I guess I shouldn't forget the proper use of a good flash...

Scott Kimball · 02-28-2006, 05:58 PM

I like the fact that the 17-40 f/4L is a constant aperture (f/4 through the range). The front element racks in and out a small amount, but the filter threads remain static (they don't rack or rotate - good for polarizer use). The filter size is 77mm - common for most of the sub-supertelephoto "L" series lenses.

The lens has a gasket on the mounting ring, giving an improved seal for damp or dirty conditions. When a filter is used, it seals the front element as well.

The barrel is metal, as is the mount. The zoom and focus rings are solid and smooth. It is a very sturdy and well constructed lens. My only minor complaint is that the numbers on the zoom ring are so close to the body that they can be difficult to read.

The included hood is rather large and ungainly. It would be necessary when using the lens with 35mm film or a full-frame sensor. There are substitute hoods you can purchase (made for other Canon lenses, but I'm not sure which models at present) that are more compact and safe for use with a 1.6 crop sensor.

The lens only has a 1 year warranty - less than some other manufacturers. I found this out the hard way when mine became mis-calibrated at about 14 months. recalibration cost me about $100 and the loss of the lens for about 10 days for the round trip to factory service.

Still, a highly recommended lens. Sharp. Good contrast. Good flare tolerance.

-Scott