Trying to chose a good lens for < 400 quid. Any opinions?

pobbien

Hey All,

I'm heading to New york soon and thinking of getting a new general use lens for my canon 400D. I don't have a huge budget but want to replace the original 18-55mm non IS lens that came with the camera. I've never been happy with this lens, found it very hard to get a good sharp image from it.
I have picked out a few lenses below and have the price that I should be able to get them for in NY. What do people think is the best of the lot?
I don't really have more than this to spend. The ratings against some of these lenses are what slrgear.com gave for them.
I'm very surprised by the high rating the 18-55mm IS lens was given, so for that money i'm thinking this or otherwise the sigma 17-70 but very open to suggestions.
Thanks

canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM

price = $425 rate 7.89

canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

price = $370 rate 7.59

canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS

price = $140 rate 9.00

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5

price = $340 rate 8.04

Sigma 18-125 f/3.8-5.6 OS HSM

price = $309

Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 OS HSM

price = $399

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC macro

price = $369

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG macro

price = $429

City-Exile

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is fairly wide and gives you a constant f/2.8.
18mm isn't bad for landscapes and 50mm can be nice for portraits.

Rainbowsend

For what its worth, my pick would be the Sigma 18-200 I have the equivalent lens Quantaray brand which I believe is made by Sigma for the American market, bought it there a couple of years ago. I would say it is my most used lens, is on the camera 80% of the time, is the only lens I would bring on holidays, it is small enough and light enough to carry around and covers a wide range of lengths. A good all rounder for me anyways.

silverside

i have the sigma 17-70 and am very happy with it, i rarely feel the need for anything longer - read a lot of reviews and its generally seen as better than the canon 17-85 except that it doesnt have IS.

I would be tempted by the sigma 18-50 2.8 though, based on what I have - 2.8 gives v nice DOF.

edit: I upgraded from the 18-55 IS which came with my 450D as I wasnt happy with the sharpness, the 17-70 is in a different league.

pobbien

Thanks Silverside thats the kinda feedback i wanted between the 18-55 IS and the 17-70, so between those two definitely go for the sigma 17-70.
I have gotten a lend of the sigma 18-200 so going to check it out tonight.

TheNorthBank

There's a 17-85mm and a 18-55mmIS over on adverts at the moment. Here's the 18-55IS: http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=103019

Rb

Would the lack of IS be noticable on the 17-70 in everyday use?

silverside

not by me, at least - i dont generally shoot at slow speed handheld though

look at my "skaters" and "dublin" sets on flickr for an idea what its capable of

Mycroft H

^ not really.

On my 18-70, the lack of i.s makes not a whole lot a of difference. Its only makes a large difference at focal lenghts greater then 135mm. Its not worth the extra on a short telephoto ie less then 70mm imo.

Mr. Grieves

IS isn't really that great an asset. For that reason I'd pick any of the Sigmas there over the Canons.

The 18-50mm f/2.8 sounds very nice for its wide aperture, but if you already have a 50mm f/1.8 (and you most definitely should), you kinda have that covered.

Both the 18-125 and 18-200 have good range and seem like pretty good value, but they're very slow. See what you think of the one you borrowed.

24-70 seems a bit long for an all-purpose lens on a crop sensor body.

The 17-70 is probably the best compromise - reasonable range, wide-ish aperture. I have it, and many of the photos on my Flickr were taken using it. It's a bit older than some of the lenses there, so even thought they're similarly priced new, you should be able to get the 17-70 for a lot less secondhand. I payed 150e for mine in a shop in Dublin. You'll find it's better built and nicer to use than the kit lens for sure.