- This topic is empty.
2.8…. next lens, what would you go for?
-
Another lens question from me!
I currently have a Sigma 17-70 as my main walkabout lens and at the mo it is also the widest lens that I have. But I think I need to change things around a little.
I suppose the next obvious question is what do I have and what do I shoot…Kit:
50mm 1.8; Sigma 17-70; Sigma 70-300 APO, 430 EXIIPotraits:
I have the nifty fifty which I love, but feel that I am desperately missing something with range to handle low light. The 17-70 has a good walkabout range, but flash is always needed indoors (which is where I shoot mainly).Landscapes:
I am content enough with the 17mm (most of the time) and when pushed can usually borrow a Sigma 10-20 from Peter :).The question is what should I go for next?
1. I am considering changing the Sigma 17-70 for a 2.8 variant, perhaps the Sigma 28-70, Tamron 17-50, Tamron 28-75 – any thoughts?
2. If I move up to 24/28 mm then I will need a UWA (as per previous post) – for this the Sigma 10-20 seems perfect.Would love some advice from someone who uses these lenses – especially changing the 17-70.
Thanks.
i had the sigma 24-70 2.8 and hated it
the focus and zoom were back to front on what i was used to
i didnt find it fast or anything for focus
Cheers Steve. You can read all you want on the net, but personal opinions like this always seem to put it into context.
Are there any others from usual f2.8 small zoom that you would recommend? Tamron 17-50, Sigma 17-50, Sigma 28-70?Thanks.
I had the Sigma 18-50 2.8. It is a super lens. Really sharp, and focus is ok, but not up to Canon USM speed. It’s really useful as an all around lens, but I find I usually use a tele or ultrawide and I rarely need the inbetween focal lengths, but that is probably just down to what I shoot.
When I’m struggling in low light I usually pop the flash anyway, or switch for a fast 50mm.
The Canon 28mm 1.8 might be worth a look if you shot indoors a lot and don’t want to use flash.
The Canon 17-55 2.8 IS is the ultimate low light lens. But ultimate in price too.
I also use a Canon 10-22. It isn’t the brightest lens (though brighter than the Sigma 10-20.. f/3.5-4.5), but with the ultrawide angle you can get away with some pretty slow shutter speeds and I find it really useful in low light. Can’t recommend that lens enough. It would compliment your existing lens range really well. Just a thought…
I ended up getting a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for £200 (used). Can’t afford the dizzy heights of the Canon alternatives yet!
Looking forward to getting it – and is it if crap I always have Peter (PD_Barbs) to blame as it was his recommendation :)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
