Idea's for a new lens

[Mickee]

Hey all,

I have been using the Sigma 18 -125 as my walk around for the past 2 years and I want to buy myself a Christmas present and support this economy

I also have the 85mm f/1.8 which I love...

Just trying to upgrade my walkaround.

My body is the EOS Digital Rebel XT (a.k.a. 350D) which I'll upgrade in another year or so.....( probably sooner rather then later)
And Ill pass this body & Sigma lens onto my son who enjoys the hobby as well!

I know a few years ago there were a few people that had the Sigma and just curious to see what you moved up to if anything.

Camera goes everywhere, spends time out on the boat, lot of nature, traveling internationally, children are 12 & 11, just some of things I do with it...I think I need a bit more distance then the 125.....for starters and better in some low lights then the Sigma...

Heading back to WDW in Feb!

Thank you and Happy Holidays! !

 

[webshark3]

More reach than 125 and better in low-light.... you want the holy grail.

You may want to move up to an IS lens in lieu of faster for low-light (assuming you don't need it for action). Long/fast zooms are large, heavy, expensive (for good IQ).

Perhaps this new Tamron?
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/page4.asp

I haven't seen a review yet, but here's Sigma's superzoom with OS:
Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS

and Canon's:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page4.asp

 

[wdwwishes]

I have Canon's "new" IS 18-200 and really like it. It gives a god wide angle as well as a good zoom. I bought at true wide angle zoom for a trip to Arizona in August and was thrilled that I did. The scenic shots are great and I used almost exculsively on that trip. It's a Sigma 12-24 mm. I also have a Canon 17-85 mm IS zoom but rarely it use since the 18-200 mm covers that range and then some. Do you have an external flash? I didn't think I'd like one but purchased one an am happy with it too. There's always something to add. good luck with your decision.

 

[Metallicat]

I have the Sigma 18-200 OS lens and I really like it. I find it kind of heavy though.

 

[jfinke]

It all depends on your budget.

I have the Sigma APO 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro. It is a nice lens for the price. However, my 70-200 f/4L IS is a much nicer lens.

Another option could be the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.

Or perhaps the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

 

[ukcatfan]

It all depends on your budget.

I have the Sigma APO 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro. It is a nice lens for the price. However, my 70-200 f/4L IS is a much nicer lens.

Another option could be the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.

Or perhaps the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

No offense, but none of those would be considered a walk around lens.

 

[Tom Dibble]

Best advice, but you'll probably not like it: get a good 50mm lens to walk around with (preferably the f1.4 from Canon). Relatively cheap, tack sharp, and GREAT in low light! Oh, and feather light, which is great for walking around. If you haven't shot with a prime before you owe it to yourself to pick one up. You'll find it far more useful than you might imagine now

If you do go zoom, though, I've had rather good luck with the Canon 24-135 (I believe) IS lens. My copy's rather sharp (I had a couple Sigma lenses before this one ... I keep hearing people complain about the sharpness of the 24-135 lens, but if this is NOT sharp then I can't even think of a word to describe what was coming out of my Sigmas!) The IS is great, keeping me from always lugging around a tripod, and the reach is good enough to get softball closeups of the infield when my daughters play.

Buy it locally at a shop with a good returns policy, so you can easily return it if it doesn't work for you. Mid-range lenses are always somewhat hit-and-miss for quality, so you might go through a couple "identical" lenses before finding one you are happy with.

 

[boBQuincy]

Hmm, more reach, better in low light, and a potential upgrade in camera body...
The Rebel Xsi and 50D require "L" series lenses (or equivalent) to even approach their resolution capabilities. I think the only one that comes close to meeting the requirements is Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 *but* it is hardly a walkaround lens.

None of the superzooms or anything inexpensive (except primes) will even come close to utilizing the resolution of your upgrade camera. Canon's 24-70 or 24-105 may be the closest to your requirements.

 

[jfinke]

No offense, but none of those would be considered a walk around lens.

Oopss misread the question. I just saw more reach.

I guess you could look into the Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM or the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM. Neither of which are super fast. But the 28-300mm has IS.

I personally am a little wary of the superzoom lenses. There is usually a compromise made somewhere. To be honest, after reviewing my normal sites, I am not seeing anything that could be considered a walkabout lens that is faster and has a longer reach.

You could look into an extender. However, that will generally slow down the lens by 1 stop, I believe.

 

[dpic]

Honestly, to accomplish your goals requires at least two lenses. I have the 18-55 f2.8 IS for my basic walk-around. It's a fabulous lens and great in lowlight. For the long end, look at the 70-300 IS--it's (relatively) reasonably priced and gets decent reviews. Image stabilized lenses are worth the premium you pay. If you want to spend (LOTS!) more go for the 70-200 f4 IS. Many consider it the top lens for mid-telephotos. I have both the 70-300 and the 70-200. There's definitely a step-up in quality of build and performance with the 70-200. However, the 70-300 is a fine lens, and I use it for backpacking and such.

One thing, I've had Sigma lenses. They're good lens, but I've had one repaired (aperture blades sticking which is a common issue). Plus, they engineer backwards meaning when Canon makes a body, Sigma looks it over to produce their processors for it. I've had to have a flexboard replaced on my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 because it didn't work correctly with my 20D. I also have the Sigma 10-20--I love this lens. So, I'm not saying don't buy Sigma, I'm just saying the chances of an issue might be a little higher (but you pay less for them, too).

 

[Mickee]

Great information everyone, thank you..
some things I didn't think of, let me re-read and then go through all the
reviews for the above mentioned lenses.
Yes, in search of the holy grail...

There was mention of a budget...It's an investment I'm going to have for along time and pass it on to my son..The figure I had in mind was around 1 k ish? If alot less..hey great..

WdwWishes, yes I have an external flash, Canon 430, love it

Thank you again all and will welcome more ideas

 

[DVC Jen]

If I didn't currently have the 28-135 (my walkaround) I would seriously consider the canon 55-250 as a walk around. I have heard pretty good things about it. I don't mind a larger lens as a walkaround - as long as it works for me.