erikgrinsvall From Sweden, joined Jul 2008, 25 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3313 times:
Hello all mighty photographers!
I started a thread because I want to add some camera equipment into my camera bag, thus I cant really decide whether to get an Ultra-angle lens, Canon 17-40mm. Or perhaps a Tele-lens Sigma 150-500mm
I know that these are two complete different lens's in every way, Brand, specification, you name it, except that they produces relatively good results and the price.
After spending a lot of time in camera retailer stores, I have now really decided that I have to make up my mind. Except that it's not easy when you are a poor student in Sweden, even though I have saved up a bit to get myself a new lens.
I use currently own a Canon 1000D and Canon 50D, 2 Canon standard lens's 18-50mm and budget version of Sigma 75-300mm. These lens's are all pretty basic material, but now I figure to upgrade.
So this is why maybe I could use your help; those especially that are specialized in Camera and have done this for along time ^^, to guide me to the lens that I could perhaps use in the aviation world, and free time.
Reason why I was looking at the Canon 17-40mm was because I try to do a bit of cabin, wing view, Terminal, and close-up aircraft perspectives. And for the 150-500mm is to get good shots on arriving and departing aircraft. Both are around at the same price at $1000/€690.
So then perhaps you guys; and of course woman, could give me some pros and cons on these lens's, or maybe even give me suggestions for another lens.
erikgrinsvall From Sweden, joined Jul 2008, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3234 times:
Ok, that sound's like one option.
Good friend of mine always tells me to get Canon lens's, but I think Sigma can do them pretty well as well.
The lens will be most likely to be always stationed on the Canon 50D, which I almostly reckon would be at the best.
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3233 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3230 times:
Quoting NicolasRubio (Reply 1): I'd go for two good lenses. I'd compromise the 500mm and get a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L AND a Sigma 10-20mm EX DC HSM.
I completely 100% agree with this. It would be a fantastic combination for you.
Quoting eggohoek (Reply 2): For Canon camera buy only Canon lens.
Why on earth would you say this? I have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for my 50D that has done nothing but make me completely happy. I know many people who use Sigma's 150-500, 10-20, or any other lens and are thrilled. Tokina makes some great glass, too. Silly advice, if you ask me, with all respect.
TIS
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
Elitist blabber, mostly.
But Canon has a tendency to rewire their electronics between camera models in such a way that 3rd party optics no longer work (whether they do so deliberately to hurt competitors or not is debatable), so Canon optics may be a better long term investment if you plan to (regularly) upgrade your body.
That said, the consumer grade Sigma lenses aren't that good, optically. The best of them are quite decent, but no more.
Their EX line of lenses however are some of the best money can buy, and excellent value (better dollar for dollar than Canon or Nikon, say 90-95% of the optical and mechanical quality for 30-40% of the pricetag).
I own a Sigma 170-500 (I assume a predecessor to the 150-500) and it's not a bad lens as long as you don't add filters in front of it.
It's slow, and because of its size somewhat cumbersome to operate, but as it's relatively light weight (which in part accounts to its slowness, the optical elements aren't big enough to let through more light, thus saving weight and cost) it's more easy to handle than highend lenses of similar focal length.
I've now however replaced it with a f/2.8 70-200EX with matching teleconverter (also Sigma) which is more versatile and has far better optics as well as being easier to handle. It is of course quite a bit more expensive as well.
Geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1421 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3221 times:
Erik;
I think you have already received some good advice;
Quoting NicolasRubio (Reply 1):
I'd go for two good lenses. I'd compromise the 500mm and get a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L AND a Sigma 10-20mm EX DC HSM.
I think Nicolas has the right idea.
As for:
Quoting eggohoek (Reply 2): For Canon camera buy only Canon lens.
That's what you call, "being overly brand conscious !
Of course Canon lenses are great.........if you buy the right ones! All makers produce some "not so greats"........even Canon and Nikon; And there are MANY great "3rd party" lenses........Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, to name just a few;
But you STILL must buy the right ones! ( they make a few "clunkers" too! )
My BEST advice? Don't get in a huge hurry! Ask as many people as you can, especially people who own what you are thinking of buying; even better..........read as many un-biased reviews as you can lay your hands on. ( You can find ANYTHING on the internet ! Just have to take the time to look.
I personally have been extremely fortunate, buying Nikon lenses on eBay; both new and used; but again, it takes a lot of knowledge, a lot of research, and a lot of "leg work"; there really are many great "deals" on eBay, but you need to be very "savy" to avoid the "pitfalls" !
What ever you do..........and you are already doing it.............get a good education, above all else! It's the single best investment of time and money you will ever make !
Good luck in all things !
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
Fly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3120 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3216 times:
Instead of the Canon 17-40 (which I believe is a F4 lens without stabilizer), I would recommend the Sigma EX 17-50/2.8 with OS. I've just bought this one to replace the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS which has given me only problems and expensive repairs. While I generally favor Canon lenses (L series), in many cases Sigma EX are an excellent alternative.
Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2579 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3207 times:
The first thing I would consider, what focal lengths do you need and which do you use mostly? Do you need wide angle or the extra range? Once you have those questions sorted, you can choose lenses accordingly. I wouldn't buy 2 lenses just for the sake or getting them, choose based on need.
Given you use a 50D, you really need good optics to get the best from it. If you don't need more than 200mm, then the 70-200 f/4 is the obvious choice. Given you were considering a 150-500 though, and currently use a 70-300, is 200mm enough reach for you? or do you not use the longer end of the 70-300 anyway? The 70-200 f/4 is probably Canons best lens. The 10-20 EX is a great wide angle, but do you need 10mm? There's no point getting a 10mm if you wont use that wide, or a 150-500 if you'll never need more than 200mm, so a 70-200 is enough. Lots of things still to consider that only you can answer.
Quoting eggohoek (Reply 2): For Canon camera buy only Canon lens.
I've been using both Canon and Sigma EX lenses for years. There's not much between them so this is rubbish in my opinion.
Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, RR: 40 Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3198 times:
Quoting erikgrinsvall (Reply 11): I am here now at the EOS Canon website, and I kind find two of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and the EF 70- 200mm f/4L USM.
They are at two different price tags, but i suspect it's the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
As you can see, one has the words IS after it and the other (cheaper) one doesn't. Depends on what you'll be shooting but I'd take the IS one in any situation - better possible resale value and more flexibility.
NicolasRubio From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 583 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3180 times:
The IS one is better. Not only because it has IS, but also because it was released some years later (better glass and better optical design). It is ONE HELL OF A LENS! But it is over U$D 1k, while the non-IS one is only U$D 650 IIRC.
jensobreuer From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3139 times:
Quoting Fly-K (Reply 14): It's by far the best lens I have - supersharp! As has been said, it's a completely different league from the non-IS one.
It's definitly a great lens - but I wouldn't say it's a different league from the non-IS one ... Also the non-IS has a phantastic quality and is by far the L lens with the best price-performance ratio ...
JohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3125 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
And...don't get them in Sweden, a 70-200 F4 IS is 1300 euro at Rajala! 800 euro in Hong Kong. You can almost get a round ticket for that money, and do some great spotting as a bonus
7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2008, 25 posts, 
From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 583 posts, 
From Hungary, joined Nov 2005, 53 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3233 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2000, 3120 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2579 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
