New lens for Canon EOS300

L

liamjf

Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Location
LONDON
Hello chaps, posted here on the off chance there are a few canon experts out there (Come in Isaac :D ). Anyway question as per title have a Canon EOS 300 (not digital!) with a kit 28-80 lens that came with it. Now would like to upgrade to something a bit better - optically and being able to use at lower light levels. Canon don't seem to make anything mid price (before the professional L series) so I have narrowed it down to these:

Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DG Macro......................£280
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD..........................£260 (inc free skylight filter)

Anyone have a preference or know where to get them cheaper?
Or something else instead?

ATB, Liam.
 
The Sigma is an great lens. I have it in a Nikon mount on my D70 and my GF uses it as her main lens in the studio.
 
Thanks for that - I am definitely leaning towards one of these two! However, just noticed on Sigma's web site these:
Sigma 24-60 F2.8 EX DG................................£258
Sigma 28-70 F2.8 EX DG................................£230

confuses matters somewhat! I assume the the first is merely slightly cheaper because it's 24-60 rather than 24-70 and the second a fair bit cheaper as it starts at 28mm and is inferior optically. Funnily enough the 24-60 and the 28-70 both look very similar both externally and from the optics diagrams.
Best to go for the 24-70 and get more at both ends!? ;)

liam.
 
From what i have seen on canon forums, the sigma is a very good lense but their qual control lets the odd bad one thru.
Try looking at 7dayshop.com aswell, prices are very good. Im looking at gettin a 100-300 USM canon lense, about 30% less than mainland price.
 
The 24 - 60 is really designed for DSLRs where it becomes a more usable
35 - 90.
The 28 - 70 was designed pre DSLRs, but was as far as I remember (I used to have one) also a great lens.
As you are using a film rather than DSLR the 28 - 70 would still be a very good choice. You just have to decide if the extra angle of view at the short end
is worth the extra cash to you.
 
Dare I suggest you consider getting the 50mm F1.8? Fast, great quality and about £70.

Remember, it wasn't that long ago that all SLRs came with a 50mm quality lens instead of the 28-80s or similar that you get today.

I don't know what the quality of the Sigma/Tamron lenses you mentioned are like but I certainly don't think a lot of the 18-70 Nikkor that came with my D70 - barrell distortion, vignetting - it's got the lot and I understand it's one of the better ones! I tend to use my 50mm F1.4 Nikkor whenever I can.

Matt.
 
Have you considered the Canon 24-85 USM?

I ask because I've been dreadfully disappointed in every sigma lens I've had, compared to canon USM, and it's a similar price range. In the 24-50 range it is a spectacular performer, although beyond 50 it's not so hot.

The other issue with the sigmas is compatibility... My old Sigma 70-300 APO wouldn't have worked with any of my last 3 EOS bodies. Many newer sigmas won't work again with the 20D. If you might upgrade to a digital body later (maybe the 350D's replacement, or whatever) then be very wary as things may become incompatible again. Sigma are only bound to offer re-chipping on current lenses, and their rate of turn-over is high (for example, they've replaced the 500 F4.5 EX with a new DG version after only 3 years or so. It's no different, but they don't have to rechip the old one now).

The 50 F1.8 is fantastic. It will hook you on high-quality lenses. It's now the only non-L series lens I have and it's not going anywhere. The 24 F2.8, 35 F2, 50 F1.8 and 85 F1.8 primes are all truly excellent.
 
It's a shame you've had trouble with Sigma Isaac. Perhaps the Canon versions aren't as compatible. I've used Sigma EX lenses on all my Nikons, film and DSLR and never had an issue even at 20 by 30 inch prints.
 
Thanks for all the advice. I have a Canon EF 75-300 USM F4-5.6 III and whilst it is a pretty decent lens the build quality is not great and I would like something faster so can't see myself getting the Canon 24-85 USM (It's somewhere around F4-5.6 as well right?)
The Sigma has had lots of great reviews (and a couple of not so great)
Interested in the talk of 2 primes (More to carry though!). How much would a 24mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 be/weigh?
Thanks for reminding me about 7dayshop - I buy film from them all the time but their web site is so poor I didn't realise they sold lenses! (Even tried them earlier and a search for lenses didn't realise any results!). They are cheaper still.
Cheers, Liam.
 
Penance - I just sold my father's one last month. He'd had it since 1989, although it saw little use since 99 when he got the 100-400. It's a good lens. Optically the sigma 70-300 APO is a smidge better, but in usability terms the canon destroys the sigma... FTM, USM and none of the clunky switch handling of the sigma really makes the difference. Doing it again, I would forego the fractionally better optics of the sigma for a lens that I actually enjoyed using.

Liam - 24 F2.8 and 50 F1.8 are a spectacular combo. I personally have a 17-40, 50 F1.8 and 70-200, and that works very well (I need wider than the primes go because of the 1.6 FOV crop of the 20D, hence I sold my 20 F2.8). Those two lenses together will weigh less than an F2.8 zoom, and give you 1.3 stops more at 50mm.

If you want to see how good the 50 F1.8 is:

www.askisaac.com/images/suzec.jpg

100% crop, unprocessed, Canon EVU RAW converter. 160th at F1.8, ISO 400.

www.askisaac.com/images/building.jpg (WARNING, LARGE FILE 5MB)

Full image (100%), 80%, 0.6, 0 Unsharp mask, JPG level 12, Adobe Camera RAW converter. 1/400th F8, ISO100.

The only point I would make on the primes is expect to add the phenominal 35 F2 later on. The gap between 24 and 50 is a bit big and I personally absolutely love the 35mm length on film.
 
Isaac Sibson said:
I personally absolutely love the 35mm length on film.
Click to expand...

Indeed - it's wide enough but without distorting people in group shots. In fact it's the classic focal length for the older fixed lens classic cameras of old.

Isaac - you have now persuaded me not to sell my 24mm AF Nikkor - which of course turns into a 36mm lens on my D70.

Matt.
 
Matt - glad to be of service. :D

I've never been so keen on the 50mm or 28mm lengths. I found with my 24-85 that I only ever used it at 24mm or 35mm. My 20mm F2.8 was great on the D30 (32mm equivalent). If I had the money I'd go and buy a 1DSmkII (full frame sensor) and 35 F1.4L (one of the finest 35mms ever, from any manufacturer).
 
My addiction started in '99 with the 300 F4L IS. I've now got both the converters, 70-200 F4L and 17-40 F4L. If they came out with a 24-70 F4L then I'd buy that too...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top