Which lense of these lenses would u use?

[daarksun]

The 2.8 is all that matters in this question; It will be a more all around lens particularly if you want to shoot fast or in low light.

good luck with either lens. The 18-55 can be had for around $85 to $100. It's a kit lens.

 

[LShooter]

The size of the lens you choose is fully based on what you plan to do with it.

Brand is personal. Some will only buy the brand of lens that matches the brand of camera and not third party. Others love third party.

You wouldn't buy a 14mm to shoot sports, just as you wouldn't buy a 600mm to shoot wide angles. Each lens has a purpose. That's why most serious shooters own lots of lenses.

 

[bobandcar]

Ok, basically I own both lenses, I have been using the 18-55 and have noticed that I rearelybshoot at 18 so I am thinking of keeping the sigma and selling the canon.

Any additional thoughts

 

[prodigy2k7]

Get a better quality lens like the efs 15-85 or whatever it is. Or the 17-55 2.8 is

 

[3bayjunkie]

It really depends on what you are using it for. if you want to do landscape i would shoot with it at 18mm, but I shoot mostly weddings and kids, so I would use 28-70 just because of the wider open aperature. Also 28 -70 on a full frame sensor is almost the same focal length as a 18-55 on a cropped sensor. just incase you were wondering.

 

[bobandcar]

I've decided to keep the 18-55 is lens due to the wider end of it.

I have another question

Canon 75-300 is (think its the first is in like 1995 or so)
Or
Sigma 75-300 dg lens with macro function(think its like 2008ish)

Again I already own both and the IS is great on this thing, but the macro function is great to!


Optically they seem similar unless it's just because I have a untrained eye


Opinions please

 

[TheBiles]

Can't speak for the Sigma 75-300, but the 70-300 looks god-awful:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af-70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report--review

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201

 

[bobandcar]

Lol. I actually have the 70-300 u speak of.

When comparing pictures from that sigma to the canon 75-300 is (first edition)
They are pretty equal. I went a week using exclusively each one and I mis the IS when I use the canon but I am going to keep the sigma of the 2. The canon can't focus very close, I missed that when I used it. The sigma is like 5 feet or less.

So, anyone interested in a canon first edition 75-300 is lens?
Or, a sigma 28-70 2.8-4 lens?

 

[ItsDaveTime]

Find the focal point you shoot at the most and get a prime lens. You'll get better quality and speed, and if you spend a few bucks, better low light ability.
My opinion on those lenses above are I would sell them on eBay, put the money I made on both lenses together, and get a better lens, whether it be Canon, Sigma, Tamron. (I prefer Sigma over Tamron).
Just my $.02

 

[bobandcar]

I see what u are saying but I don't find myself using primes so much.
That being said, I use mainly the 200-300 range on that lense.

But I also have a 400mm fd lens with adapter that I use quite often

 

[bobandcar]

O, also I saw somewhere sigma has a 170-400 or a 170-500 this would be a good range for me but prob to big and heavy to hand carry

 

[sovietdoc]

Do you already have Canon's 55-250? They also have some 70-300's which will be even longer because of your crop sensor.

The longest thing you can get is probably Sigma's 150-500 but it looks silly when people carry it around and hand-hold...

What do you shoot that you need that kind of tele?

 

[bobandcar]

I like birds and dear that kind of stuff.

No to the 55-250

 

[gsgary]

I wouldnt use any of those

 

[bobandcar]

I wouldnt use any of those

U must not be on a budget then