Adam_B
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 00
Location: Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
I want a better lens for my 400D, to replace the standard 18-55 that came with the camera. My reason for changing it is i want something that performs better in low light, so i need something that does a bigger aperature.
I dont really know about this stuff, like whats good or whatever, but i found this, any good? Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro for Canon EF. The only thing that bugs me is its only 1 stop difference from the canon 18-55s f3.5. I have the 50mm that does f1.8 but its not always ideal for what i want, should i be looking at something more like a 35mm prime?
|
Whittie
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 06
Location: North Wales Drives: BMW, Corsa & Fiat
User status: Offline
|
Don't go sigma.
If you're going 2.8 - get the cannon glass. It's expensive but worth it  
|
Gaz
Member
Registered: 24th Aug 03
Location: Widnes, Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
L Glass is what you want Adam, as they said on TP, you need to understand what you want from the lens in order to be able to choose the correct focal lenght.
|
Butler
Member
Registered: 2nd Jun 05
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
Nothing wrong with sigma.....
The APO lenses are supposedly better in low light.
|
gsiIan
Member
Registered: 24th Mar 07
Location: wirral
User status: Offline
|
i use sigma and never had a problem.
[Edited on 03-12-2008 by gsiIan]
|
Adam_B
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 00
Location: Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
what is L glass?
|
Adam_B
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 00
Location: Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gaz
L Glass is what you want Adam, as they said on TP, you need to understand what you want from the lens in order to be able to choose the correct focal lenght.
I like the focal range of the kit lens, i just want it to be better in low light 
|
Whittie
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 06
Location: North Wales Drives: BMW, Corsa & Fiat
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Butler
Nothing wrong with sigma.....
The APO lenses are supposedly better in low light.
I've used both the 18-50 f2.8 lens from sigma, and the 17-55 lens from Nikon.
Sigma didn't come close to the quality of the nikon lens.
Have you actually used an f2.8 sigma?
It's like buying smart price toilet roll, the only thing apealing is the price difference  
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
Always go for the most expensive you can afford. Don't go for one because its cheaper. You WILL regret it and wish you had saved up for the more expensive one in the end.
Its why im saving for my 14-24 2.8. Costs over £1000 and i could get a similar cheaper version but i know i'll regret it and want the nikon glass.
|
AndyKent
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 05
User status: Offline
|
Why do you need stuff thats better in low light?
What are you taking photos of? If you're doing night shots you don't need the wide open aperture and you'll struggle to get a faster lens than the 50mm for a reasonable price (although the 50 is a bit slow to focus).
You need to know what you'll use it for before making a recommendation tbh.
|
Butler
Member
Registered: 2nd Jun 05
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whittie
quote:
Originally posted by Butler
Nothing wrong with sigma.....
The APO lenses are supposedly better in low light.
I've used both the 18-50 f2.8 lens from sigma, and the 17-55 lens from Nikon.
Sigma didn't come close to the quality of the nikon lens.
Have you actually used an f2.8 sigma?
It's like buying smart price toilet roll, the only thing apealing is the price difference
70-200 f/2.8 yes on a canon, thought it was great. Also the 10-20mm and 50mm f/1.8 lenses, and was more than happy with them.
|
Adam_B
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 00
Location: Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by aPk
Why do you need stuff thats better in low light?
What are you taking photos of? If you're doing night shots you don't need the wide open aperture and you'll struggle to get a faster lens than the 50mm for a reasonable price (although the 50 is a bit slow to focus).
You need to know what you'll use it for before making a recommendation tbh.
keep getting asked to do parties and stuff, ive done a few but struggled. The 50mm was great in terms of getting a fast enough shutter speed but i found the fixed focal length was not ideal.
How much is a super canon L lens thingy?
[Edited on 03-12-2008 by Adam_B]
|
Gaz
Member
Registered: 24th Aug 03
Location: Widnes, Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
L Glass is Canon's best range, you pay thousends for L Glass.
|
Mike
Organiser: North West and North Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 20th May 06
Location: nr. Skipton, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gaz
L Glass is Canon's best range, you pay thousends for L Glass.
That's just reminded me, there's been an advert on Channel 4 recently, I think it's for a program but I can't remember and at one point there's a line of photographers (possibly paps) and the one closest to the camera has got an L range lens, I always notice the give away red ring around the top end of it.
Am I sad?
|
Gaz
Member
Registered: 24th Aug 03
Location: Widnes, Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
L Lenses are usually white with a red ring - yes.
All pro's use them at football matches etc...
|
Mike
Organiser: North West and North Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 20th May 06
Location: nr. Skipton, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
There's black L lenses too, the one on the advert is black.
Regarding which lens to go for, if you wanna go Canon, I've read some good reviews about this one, although it's not cheap.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
It's an L lens, so build and picture quality should be top notch, you can manually focus in auto focus mode if you're not happy with what the auto focus has done.
Something cheaper, although by no means cheap:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM
As good as the same focal length as kit, Image Stablisation.
Those suggested retail prices are on the high side, I've found some lenses £100 or so cheaper elsewhere but if you wanna stick to Canon it's the easy way to find what they sell 
[Edited on 03-12-2008 by Mike B]
|
Gaz
Member
Registered: 24th Aug 03
Location: Widnes, Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gaz
L Lenses are Usually white..
And your links are not working btw
[Edited on 03-12-2008 by Gaz]
|
Gaz
Member
Registered: 24th Aug 03
Location: Widnes, Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
In simple terms adam, with photography Usually the more you spend the better the glass will be.
|
AndyKent
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 05
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam_B
quote:
Originally posted by aPk
Why do you need stuff thats better in low light?
What are you taking photos of? If you're doing night shots you don't need the wide open aperture and you'll struggle to get a faster lens than the 50mm for a reasonable price (although the 50 is a bit slow to focus).
You need to know what you'll use it for before making a recommendation tbh.
keep getting asked to do parties and stuff, ive done a few but struggled. The 50mm was great in terms of getting a fast enough shutter speed but i found the fixed focal length was not ideal.
How much is a super canon L lens thingy?
[Edited on 03-12-2008 by Adam_B]
For low light portrait style photos I'd be looking at:
Prime - Canon 85mm F1.8 - £300ish
(there is a better 85mm F1.2 but thats £1200-1300ish)
or zoom - Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L - £800ish
If you looking at spending big money though, I wouldn't consider any of the EF-S range. They only fit the smaller Canon bodies and won't work on the 5D, 5D Mk2 or any of the 1D series camera.
|
Mike
Organiser: North West and North Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 20th May 06
Location: nr. Skipton, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gaz
quote:
Originally posted by Gaz
L Lenses are Usually white..
And your links are not working btw
[Edited on 03-12-2008 by Gaz]
I knew the links weren't working but my chicken roast was calling me
And I read the usually, I was making the point that the one in the advert I mentioned was black, you narkey bugger 
|
Adam_B
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 00
Location: Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
So are we saying dont bother unless your prepared to spend about £800?
|
AndyKent
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 05
User status: Offline
|
Bother yes, but if you're serious about it you'll no doubt want to upgrade sooner or later. You've already pretty much got the fastest lens at the best price and its pretty difficult to beat TBH.
That said, my 85mm prime for £300 isn't a bad shout if I do say so myself.
Have you thought of hiring to see what you like and suits you? http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk
|
Adam_B
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 00
Location: Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
i dont think an 85mm prime will suit me really 
Does the IS make much difference to low light performance? ie can you run it a couple of stops lower than you normally would without a tripod? Does it perform better in that situation than the L lens without IS?
|
AndyKent
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 05
User status: Offline
|
Yeh, does a bit, but it isn't as good as a nice wide aperture. I would have said try the Canon 55-250 IS lens but it probably wouldn't be fast enough (only an F4 - F5.6).
My 300mm L IS lens lets me go about 3 stops faster, but isn't always perfect......
|
Gaz
Member
Registered: 24th Aug 03
Location: Widnes, Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by aPk
Yeh, does a bit, but it isn't as good as a nice wide aperture. I would have said try the Canon 55-250 IS lens but it probably wouldn't be fast enough (only an F4 - F5.6).
I have the 55-250mm if you want to come down and have a play with it? although i think you have borrowed it before haven't you?
|
