sigma 18-200mm or canon 17-85mm?

[amokduke]

Hi,

I am thinking of replacing both my starter lens. EF-S 18-55mm II and EF 55-200mm II USM
for a good 'walkaround' lens.

I am planning of spending up to $800 for it and I dun mind 2nd hand.

So far, these two lens has caught my eye.
1) Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS
2) EF-S 17-85mm F4.0-5.6 IS USM

Is there any other lens that I should be thinking about?
I feel sharpness is more impt than zoom range. Thanks in advance for anyone who reply. =)
I am using 350d now. =)

 

[diver-hloc]

Hi,

I am thinking of replacing both my starter lens. EF-S 18-55mm II and EF 55-200mm II USM
for a good 'walkaround' lens.

I am planning of spending up to $800 for it and I dun mind 2nd hand.

So far, these two lens has caught my eye.
1) Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS
2) EF-S 17-85mm F4.0-5.6 IS USM

Is there any other lens that I should be thinking about?
I feel sharpness is more impt than zoom range. Thanks in advance for anyone who reply. =)
I am using 350d now. =)

I would get the Sigma...... mainly for the longer Zoom and better f stop. But I know of Canon user who die die won't get 3rd party lense ..... So in the end, its still up to you.

 

[charlesleong]

i have the sigma lens.

if you think you can live with the f6.3 at the 200mm end, it's a good lens to use. the zoom range is superb, but obviously there are compromises.

the long end takes some getting used to, obviously. 200mm at f6.3 (only nikon makes 18-200 3.5-5.6 iirc)

 

[pplneedthelord]

i would suggest not to get the sigma.

even in bright day light and you shoot at 200mm f/6.3... i would think the picture taken handheld would be blur. I THINK.

 

[loneoceans]

Hi amokduke,

I have used both the Tamron 18-200 and the Sigma 18-200, both of which perform well. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd get the tamron 18-200 because the tamrom focuses a lot more confidently than then Sigma, at least on my 350D.

You should consider if you will really need the 200mm reach of the sigma/tamron. In my opinion, I've found the 18-200 to be extremely useful, especially since I go mountain climbing and it's very difficult to change lenses (or lug heavy equipment up).

However, you will compromise on image sharpness and of course the 200mm is at f6.3. I have to disagree with pplneedthelord; you can get sharp images during dusk and dawn. I've got amazing shots handheld at slow shutter speeds way below 1/200, perhaps at 1/60. It's definitely bright enough during daytime.

Downsides of the superzoom - poor focusing in low light situations. My friend has the 17-85IS Canon, and the focusing is not only much faster, it is very good even in low light situations, and the IS really does work.

If you don't really need the portability of the 18-200, I'd actually suggest the 17-85 for it's good enough zoom and IS. Then you can buy another nice telephoto if you have the money!

 

[unseenshadows]

With your budget, consider also an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Second hand around 500, quite a few going around on BnS, some of them with hood and filter included.

Though this is a lens meant for FF, it is an excellent walkaround lens for a 1.6x body because of its focal length range. Lens sharpness is also very good with centre sharpness best at around f/5.6 at 28mm and f/8 at 135mm. IS and USM are also very useful.

The EF-S 17-85 is actually the APS-C designed cousin for this lens. If you are looking between the 17-85 and the 18-200, I would suggest the 17-85mm. It is already a very good focal length range for a 1.6x crop body and its sharpness is good for the price you pay. The 3rd party superzooms on the other hand, try to fit too many things into a single lens. Like what the previous poster mention, if you don't shoot at 100mm-200mm length often, I wouldn't suggest you get a 18-200. Besides at f/6.3 you have pretty much very few options of what you can shoot.

The 28-135mm sits in between these two choices in terms of focal length. Sharpness wise its as sharp as if not more sharp than the 17-85. 135mm also provides a pretty decent tele on a 1.6x.

Just my two cents.

 

[amokduke]

Hey,

Thanks guys.

I found out there is a new lens by sigma coming out:

18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM

It has a minimum focusing distance of 35cm (13.8") at all focal length. It was showcased in PMA 2008.

It should be sharper than the 18-200 and cheaper also. (Based on the non-OS version btw them)

Should I get this one instead?

 

[mummum]

Hey,

Thanks guys.

I found out there is a new lens by sigma coming out:

18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM

It has a minimum focusing distance of 35cm (13.8") at all focal length. It was showcased in PMA 2008.

It should be sharper than the 18-200 and cheaper also. (Based on the non-OS version btw them)

Should I get this one instead?

It's too new and i doubt any of us has experienced it to provide you the technical feedback.

 

[SilverPine]

Hi,

I am thinking of replacing both my starter lens. EF-S 18-55mm II and EF 55-200mm II USM
for a good 'walkaround' lens.

I am planning of spending up to $800 for it and I dun mind 2nd hand.

So far, these two lens has caught my eye.
1) Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS
2) EF-S 17-85mm F4.0-5.6 IS USM

Is there any other lens that I should be thinking about?
I feel sharpness is more impt than zoom range. Thanks in advance for anyone who reply. =)
I am using 350d now. =)

I own 20D and 350D, Canon 18-55 & 70-200 f/4 L, Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 & 70-300mm.

You should keep your 18-55mm for nature and landscape photographic, use f/5.6 for wide and f/8 for tele and it will be sharp and color quality very close to my L lens (70-90% close).

Maybe you should consider the 70-200mm f/4 L, the lens is very fast (two focusing range) and very sharp when wide open f/4. This lens is very good for sport and landscape. The color it produce is wonderful. 2nd hand price is about S$750 to 850 which fall into your budget. The L lens of Canon is the top of the range lens and is one of the best.

Please do not consider the zoom lens which is more than 2X to 3X, the lens quality will not be good. I found it Canon lens color is much better Sigma, if your budget is o.k. Canon lens will be a good choice. Canon lens (which also include the kit lens) produce picture color closer to the original object. Sigma lens produce color more toward grey and brown/yellow.

 

[xtremequantumx]

i know this is abit OT
but i will personally keep the 55-200mm II USM,
and purchase a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM cause the IQ is much better than the 18-55.
for me i prefer to separate my wide angle and telephoto needs, like one of the buddies here who said zoom factor should not be too high.

 

[calebk]

i would suggest not to get the sigma.

even in bright day light and you shoot at 200mm f/6.3... i would think the picture taken handheld would be blur. I THINK.

Depends on what shutter speed you're working with, and what ISO you're shooting at, doesn't it? Don't be so quick to write off 200mm at f/6.3.

What about the 400mm f/5.6L? Like that, everyone who uses this lens would surely get blur photos, going by your logic.

 

[amokduke]

Wah,

Thanks for the help everyone.

It makes me think... why do I want to replace my lens?

1) 18-55's reach is too short.. I have to keep changing to the 55-200...
So I decided to get a new lens with longer reach.

2) the sigma 18-200 has very good reach and can sort of replace two of my lens at one go.
But I feel IQ can become an issue.

3) then do I need to have 18-200 to solve my problem of having to keep changing lens?
Maybe not. so this is where 17-85 comes into the picture. But getting it means I have to keep a zoom lens to reach >200mm. If the IQ is the same as 18-200, 18-200 will definitely be a better buy.

4) this is where sigma 18-125 comes in. Its IQ is 'supposed' to be better than 18-200 and has longer reach than 17-85.


So I come up with a few options to take. Hope you guys can point me in the right direction.

A) Get 18-200, sell off all other lens.
Next time if required, get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM for IQ (Cannot liao, the lens is too heavy for my body... I think unless I upgrade body, I shouldn't get this lens)

B) Get the 17-85, sell off the kit 18-55.
Next time if required, replace the 55-200 with EF-S 55-250 IS USM

C) Wait and get the sigma 18-125, sell off kit 18-55
Next time if required, replace the 55-200 with sigma 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG

I am against getting EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM because I think 28 x 1.6 is not wide enough for me. and this means I had to keep my 18-55 for any wide angle shots

 

[calebk]

Food for thought: The idea of having an SLR is to be able to change to the right lens for the right application. Isn't the 18-200 the antithesis to the interchangeable SLR lens system? Wouldn't you essentially be defeating the purpose of having an SLR that allows you to change lenses?

 

[amokduke]

Haha,

well, I still got keep my 50mm f1.8 for all those wonder bokeh shots. =)

It just that the 18-55's reach is too short, I end up having to bring 3 lens every where I go.

 

[unseenshadows]

Hmm yes you are right. the 28-135mm isn't wide enough on a 1.6x, though it can still manage most landscape shots. And yes I still have an 18-55 IS lens for my wider needs.

What you may want to look at is what focal length range you shoot most often. Since you say 18-55 isn't enough reach and you change to the 55-200 often, then would you say you shoot in tele more often? If that is the case I second the 70-200 f/4. You were also debating about having a lens wide enough. Personally I would like an EF-S 10-22mm to complement my 28-135mm, but the 18-55 IS works for now. If you shoot wide angle more often than tele, but still want a good zoom range, then the 17-85 is your choice. I agree with calebk on the 18-200 being an antithesis for using a DSLR. Lenses are meant to be switched around (for me, at least). Plus the IQ isn't that fantastic.

Instead of looking for a one size fits all, why not figure out the focal length range that you shoot most often at, and get a good quality lens that would meet your needs? Unless you need to travel light, its really fine to carry 2 or 3 lens with you.

 

[cd.]

just got a 400D kit, interested to know what lens to replace the 18~55 kit lens also.

 

[calebk]

just got a 400D kit, interested to know what lens to replace the 18~55 kit lens also.

Do you need to replace it, or do you just want to replace it?

If there is no dire need, shoot with the kit lens. It's not as if the kit lens has no optics at all.

 

[amokduke]

Hee,

I just brought my 17-85mm =)

http://forums.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?p=3757199#post3757199


Now I need to get a new camera bag... to put everything I have in my signature... haha =)