Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:48 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:15 am 
Hello

Firstly, thanks for all the great reviews on this website...I have found it incredibly useful ever since finding your site!

I've bought a Canon 40D and I am currently using a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Lense from my previous camera.

I am thinking of buying a new lense, though i'm not sure which one as yet. Something that covers the general purpose area with low light potential. I'm thinking of either:

24-70mm L
24-105mm IS L
17-55mm IS
17-85mm IS

I like the f2.8 option (i.e. the 24-70 or 17-55), however since the "darker" lenses offer IS, does this mean that the low light potential of an non IS f2.8 is equilivant to the IS f4?? Are there any disadvantages of IS over brighter lense (apart from the potrait potential of the brighter lense)?

I'm not sure about the 17-55 as it seems relativily expensive compared to the others, and i'm not sure if the 17-85mm is actually a better lense than my sigma.

Is it even worth buying a new lense? The sigma is pretty good and i'm unsure if i will see much improvement.

Thanks

Alasdair O'Neil


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:59 am 
Hi Alasdair and welcome to the forum!!!

IS doesn't help to freeze a subject, although it will allow you to shoot hand held for longer. An f2.8 lens would however increase the light and give you greater flexibility with your shutter speed. If you've got a tripod, there will be very little camera shake and you may find the benefits of a brighter aperture greater than IS.

Both L lenses have fantastic build quality and it really depends on your situation as to whether you need the brighter aperture. You may also find IS more helpful on the 24-105mm because camera shake may not affect you as much with the shorter 24-70mm.

There are certainly some people on the forum who will be able to give you some more lens specific advice.

Hope this helps.

Mark


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:34 pm 
It would help if you elaborate on your current photographic needs and how the Sigma lens fails to satisfy those needs specifically.

From there it's easier to see which lenses, if any, you want to get. BTW, the Sigma 18-50 is a very capable lens.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:11 pm 
Thanks for your replies.

I enjoy taking all sorts of photos, though i guess most of the photos I take are landscape orientated. I also like taking low light photos.

I often take the low light photos without the tripod...as many of the photos are unplanned. Thus the IS consideration.

Of course I also use it to take general pictures also e.g. friends and family, but this is more "social".

This sigma is fine for the above..good even...particaularly for the landscape photos. Though it would would be useful to have a general use lense with more range, particularly for the general pictures.

Also the fact that I never tried an L lense before (in detail) so if a overall significant increase in picture quaility is available then it's worth considering.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:16 pm 
Well, if you like taking landscapes, you might miss out on the 18mm provided by your sigma if you get one of the 24mm. Perhaps a reason to go for the 17-55mm f2.8. It's brighter aperture would be useful for the low light too. Although this isn't much of an increase in zoom range...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:47 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7923
Location: Germany
As a good IS/OS/VC/VR system let's you increase shutter-times by a factor of 2^3=8 you need a (non-IS) lens that is 3 stops brighter to make handheld shots of the same probability to be free of shake. That normally is quite an investment :(
But there are 2 major pitfalls from using IS and shooting with longer shutter-times:
1. You get more motion-blur from moving subjects (I have encountered a situation where I really ruined a chance to take beautiful pics of moving children with not watching my shutter-speed)
2. Your IS-lens has potentially 2 stops smaller aperture, resulting in double the depth of field. Some people think of this as an added bonus, others regret losing the power to isolate subjects from their background by small dof.

So you have to decide for yourself, what you're more interested in...
(as always)

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:48 am 
Thanks for the replies.

I decided at the end to go for the 24-105mm L lense.

From experience the extra zoom will be very useful. Also the 24-105 was cheaper than the 24-70mm.

I cannot dismiss that the faster f 2.8 and wideangle options would have been very useful. But I still have my sigma for that when needed.

I've taken some photos with it to make sure it's ok...and it takes the low light stuff brilliantly...as well as everything else.

Thanks again

Alasdair


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group