What new Camera Lens to buy for Canon 350D?

[dwarfer16]

Hi everyone,

I currently own a Canon 350D camera which I have had for just over a year now on which I use the kit lens that came with it (a bog standard 18-55mm) which has done me so far but it is starting to hamper me. I actually posted something around Christmas last year when I was thinking of upgrading then but surphice to say, I didn't get anything! I thought I would re-post as obviously times and prices change. My friend has got a Canon lens with his 30D (I think he has got something like a 28-135). I have used his lens before on my camera and I really like his but when he brought his it was £300 and he has had it for a few years now. I have a budget of £300 and am after something that has good zoom without compromising on the lower end. I don't think I would like to go any less than my friends 28mm but without having used anything above this, I'm not sure what else might be suitable for me. I haven't really had much dealings with f-number and thus, it doesn't mean a great deal to me. If anyone has any ideas it would be appreciated! Thanks.

-dwarfer16

[Alex]

I'd be most tempted by a Canon 17-85 IS USM (I like mine) or a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.

[shiato storm]

if you can stretch a little bit further you can get the 17-85mm IS lens which would cover the equivalent of the 28-135mm range...I hear its a pretty good player.
Otherwise have a look at the new sigma 18-200mm, its got image stabiliser too...decent range for a walk-about/do-all lens. make sure the one you get is sharp though, thats all

[Funkstar]

The 17-85mm IS is a good lens, it's my default standard lens on my 350D

[Bobster]

if you can stretch a little bit further you can get the 17-85mm IS lens which would cover the equivalent of the 28-135mm range...I hear its a pretty good player.

someone broken your calculator?

[Elmo]

what i'd do with £300 to spend on my camera.... *sigh*

unfortunately i've got to spend £600 on my car in the next month

[Butcher]

The 17-85mm IS is a good lens, it's my default standard lens on my 350D

Ditto.

It's 27-136mm equiv BTW.

[dwarfer16]

The 17-85mm IS sounds like a possibility. Also does anyone have any preference or quality information on the Sigma Vs Canon lenses? I am always usually one to buy the make lens, i.e. the Canon, but then I have read some reviews saying that SIgma is just as good for a lot cheaper price. I just don't know!

[Bobster]

guys the 28-135 was used on a 30D, so has the same 1.6 crop factor as the 350D..

it is excellent glass - just a shame its not a constant aperture

[Hans Voralberg]

Check this

http://www.pbase.com/tough_dog/travel_lens_comparison

and this

http://www.virtualtraveller.org/sigm...mavscanon1.htm

with a grain of salt

I used the 17-85 for nearly a year and yeah, it's good. It's sharp, focus adequately fast, nuf said really

[Saracen]

dwarfer16, you don't say explicitly if you're after upgrading the optical quality, or the range covered, or both.

If you're after increasing your photographic options by extending the range you have, you might consider something like the Canon 70-300IS. It's a VERY good lens (in my opinion, of course), and would be a good complement to your existing lens in terms of range covered.

You could then, as funds permit, consider optically upgrading the existing kit lens to something like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. It's a very highly regarded fixed 2.8 lens which, while not built to Canon standards, if good enough for most purposes and has a very impressive optical reputation. It's about £240.

Or, perhaps, consider a superzoom, like Tamron's 28-300mm (AF 28-300mm XR Di LD IF f3.5-6.3). Optically, it isn't the equivalent of the above two lenses, BUT ..... it is designed for full-frame cameras so when you use it on a crop-factor camera like your 350D, you're using the 'sweet-spot' in the centre of the lens and avoided the corners where the worst of any optical compromises will be.

That initial pair of lenses I suggested have a reputation of being pretty close to the quality of many expensive Canon L lenses (at least in terms of image quality, though generally nowhere close to it in build quality), but at a fraction of the price. The Tamron, on the other hand, gives a very useful extended range which not only means only carrying one lens around, but also it implies not having to keep switching lenses. The 28-300mm 'superzoom' is not, in my opinion, optically as good as the pair I suggested, but it is extremely versatile and convenient, and a very good "walk-around" lens.

As an alternative, and perhaps a better choice, than the 28-300 would be the Tamron 18-250mm. It's a Di-II (see note below), but nonetheless, is very well-balanced for general use, because the 18mm low end (35mm equivalent of 29mm-ish) provided a wide-enough angle of view for most landscape shots which 28mm (35mm equivalent of 45mm) does not.

Much will depend, in my view, on how seriously you take photography, on whether (over time) you can stretch the budget to afford both and are prepared to put up with the kit lens in the meantime, and even to some extent, exactly what kind of photography you're interested in.

For instance, the fixed 2.8 aperture of that Tamron 28-75 opens up some possibilities, such as taking advantage of lower level ambient light in, say, a church interior. Another option here would be Tamron's 17-50 f2.8 (£250-ish). That offers very good optical quality, and provides the wider end of the zoom range that's ideal for landscape stuff, among other things. It's match up with the 70-300 well too.

The possession of a DSLR suggests, at least, a moderate interest in photography as opposed to snapshooting, and if you're feeling frustrated by the limitations you currently have, the pair of lenses probably better paves the way for future expansion of interests.


Or, alternatively, you could consider hunting around for a GOOD quality second-hand lens. You can pick up some bargains that way. For instance, if you could find someone with a Canon 75-300 IS lens that's thinking about upgrading and has their eye on the 100-400 L, you might be able to pick up a bargain. And as it happens .....

A word of caution, though. If it's second hand, be careful. You can buy a dud. And, in relation to the 75-300 as opposed to 70-300, while I've always had good results (maybe I was lucky with the lens I got) it does have a reputation for being soft at the 300 end, compared to the 70-300 (that replaced it). Having said that, I've had acceptably good results.


In other words, what I'm trying to say is to consider your options carefully in light of what you're trying to achieve. There's more than one way to skin a cat.





Note : Tamron Di lenses are designed for full-frame sensors and/or 35mm film. Di-II lenses are designed for the much smaller APS-C "cropped" sensors. The result is that they are lighter, and cheaper, because the optical elements are smaller, and less challenging to produce. Canon's equivalents (EF-S) won't work with full-frame cameras. The Tamron Di-II lenses will work with full-frame, but will produce heavy vignetting (dark areas in the corners) over a significant proportion of the frame/sensor.

So ..... if you buy a Di-II (or EF-S) lens and then at some future time, upgrade to a full-frame body, it either won't work at all, or will be heavily compromised. So you're locking yourself into a decision that may have consequences in future years.

Some people have, over the last year or two, argued that the smaller APS-C format for sensors is a compromise brought on by cost issues and that Canon. Nikon, etc will drop it when costs come down and we'll all be stuck with useless lenses. Personally, I think that's cobblers. Canon and Nikon (and others) are investing heavily in smaller sensors, and while I'm a Canon user and don't follow Nikon releases so carefully, I think they'll both face a HUGE backlash from users if they drop the crop-factors format. After all, there's no technical reason why smaller sensors can't produce acceptably good results (though they imply a challenge or two in terms of site-to-site noise levels, etc), and the 35mm format is an accident of history itself anyway.

My personal opinion is that crop sensors are here to stay. It's more likely that full-frame sensors will become a high-end only feature, though I wouldn't put money on that happening either. I don't, personally, see a problem with buying EF-S/Di-II lenses, because they tend to be smaller, lighter, cheaper and, all other things being equal, just as good.

BUT .... if you produce a lens designed for full-frame coverage, and then use it on a crop sensor, the light falling on the sensor has only been through the central portion of the lens (the sweet spot), and the results will usually be much better than areas going through the edges. In just about any lens, of any make or at any price (up to an including Canon's £85,000 1200mm telephoto, and I have some 35mm frames shot on that to prove it), performance at the edges is inferior to performance in the middle.

So ... Di or Di-II?

Di offers the advantage of using the sweet spot, and offering full coverage if you ever upgrade the camera to a full-frame sensor (currently, Canon's cheapest full-frame digital is the £1500-ish 5D).

Di-II offers :-

- good optical quality because they're less technically demanding to make.
- cheaper, lighter.

[dwarfer16]

Hi Saracen,

Thank you for your very detailed and informative reply! I only brought my camera about a year and I haven't got out taking pictures as often as I liked. It is more a hobby at the moment but I would like to elevate this to going out every weekend taking pictures whereas at the moment I only go out when I have the time. But I feel I am limited by my current kit lens. I suppose I am more concerned by range as at my current level of knowledge I do not notice the quality a great deal but notice the range a whole lot - especially after using my friends 28-135mm (as we both have Canon EF cameras). So I suppose I do like the sound of the 70-300IS Canon lens. Also I will probably keep my current lens for when I want a good wide-angled shot but in general, I would like to buy a lens that I can keep on the camera most of the time. My only concern is that I would notice a big different between the 70-300mm IS when compared to my friends lens which is really the best lens I have ever tried on my camera. I wouldn't want to get this new one and find I'm in for a shock!

I am slightly weary of buying a non-Canon lens even though I'm sure the Sigma/Tamron ones are just as good! Also I don't think I would like to get a second hand lens as I have felt the sharp edge of that sword before when I have brought expensive equipment off eBay. I have decided I need to buy one by the end of this week ready for a local fireworks display which is at the end of next week. So I have two days to decide!Any more thoughts. I appreciate all of your information provided. Thanks.

[IBM]

I must have a seriously duff copy of the 28-135 because mine is so bad I never use it. Luckily it's not actually mine, buy my wife's, and I'm happy sticking with my primes.

I've always thought of the 28-135mm as a real compromise lens, so make sure you get hold of a decent copy, or you'll be disapointed in more ways than with the 70-300.

[Saracen]

.....

I am slightly weary of buying a non-Canon lens even though I'm sure the Sigma/Tamron ones are just as good! Also I don't think I would like to get a second hand lens as I have felt the sharp edge of that sword before when I have brought expensive equipment off eBay. I have decided I need to buy one by the end of this week ready for a local fireworks display which is at the end of next week. So I have two days to decide!Any more thoughts. I appreciate all of your information provided. Thanks.

I understand the hesitation about third-party lenses and, to a point, share it. I also understand the second-hand issue, and I absolutely agree. There's no doubt that you can get a real bargain second-hand, but there's also no doubt you can pick up a complete dog. Personally, I would absolutely not buy something as potentially delicate and sensitive as a lens on eBay. But .... in person where you can test it first, well, that might be different.

But back to third party lenses.

In years gone past, I would completely agree that you were likely to find third-party quality disappointing. But, with computer-aided design and manufacturing, and with improvements in material quality (like high-quality glass), those limiting factors are MUCH reduced. There are some third-party lenses that give Canon and Nikon lens a serious run for their money, yet can cost half or a third of what a Canon or Nikon version will cost you.

I was quite careful in the lenses I suggested, AND the comments I made. The Tamron 28-300mm does not have the optical reputation of the 28-75, let alone the 17-50mm. Yet, for the money, and considering the range, it's still a decent choice for such a versatile lens.

But what ibm implied is right, too. The Canon 70-300 IS is highly regarded, but it very much depends on the standards you set for yourself. I recently did a fairly brief comparison between the 70-300 IS and the 100-400 L IS. While the 100-400 was better (IMHO, and based on that limited testing), the difference wasn't huge .... yet the 100-400 is close to three times the price (and has some 'quirks' of it's own, design-wise). Put either of those up against a Canon 70-200 L IS, and you'll see yet another improvement in image quality, albeit from a less versatile lens which, depending on the aperture of the version you choose, will be either a couple of hundred more than or about three hundred less than the the 100-400.

And few zooms can compete optical with good quality prime lenses. But, of course, good quality primes can be expensive (through to VERY expensive) and seriously less versatile.

What you will get in terms of optical quality is generally very much a function of what you are prepared to pay. BUT .... careful selection of third-party lenses can be a way to take a significant step up in image quality without it costing a fortune.

So, it's fine to spend a lot on Canon lenses if you either have lots of spare money or, like me, have a half-decent business case for it (with the inherent VAT and Income Tax implications). But otherwise, looking seriously at third party lenses can put you in an optical quality league that you won't be able to afford with Canon's own lenses.

If you take my advice, you won't dismiss Tamron out-of-hand.

Again, personally, I do dismiss Sigma out-of-hand. Why? Not because of optical quality. It's because Sigma have been known to have had problems with compatibility of as-yet unreleased camera bodies with their lenses.

There's a lot of speculation and anecdotal evidence in what I'm about to say, and I do NOT claim it as hard fact. If you want full compatibility with, say, Canon camera bodies, the lens has to understand the messages the camera sends. It is RUMOURED that Tamron licensed the data necessary to ensure this from Canon, but that Sigma reversed-engineered it, and went their own way. But regardless of the truth of that or how it came about, there've been a number of cases where fitting a Sigma lens to a new Canon body has resulted in an error message and the body locking up (until the lens was removed at the camera rebooted). I'm not aware of any instances of that with Tamron.

Secondly, if a Sigma lens does cause this problem, you have to get it rechipped. In the USA, Sigma does this at no cost. In the UK, you get to pay for it. And, again according to anecdotal evidence, Sigma will only do that for current lenses. So ..... in a few years time when you're trying to get your Sigma lens to work with your new Canon 75D, you could find the Sigma doubling as an expensive but fundamentally useless doorstop. The mere risk of that is such that personally, I won't even consider Sigma lenses.


Back to the main point. I know several people that have been on the point of buying an £800 Canon 24-70 f2.8L, but bought the £250 Tamron 28-75 after having tried it. I know one person that bought the Tamron and sold his existing £800 Canon 24-70L because he preferred the image quality from the Tamron. That decision was NOT about saving or recuperating money. As I say, I'd advise not ruling Tamron out, out-of-hand.


What you won't get from Tamron is either the build quality or image stabilisation (though having said that, they're about to release an image-stabilised version of the 28-300). It's due next month. Build quality is another issue, though. Canon lenses tend to feel more solid, feel smoother and certainly tend to focus more quickly and quietly, at least in those that use USM (Canon's utrasonic motors for AF). And, of course, the more expensive L lenses (like the 24-70 I was talking about) are designed to take the bumps and knocks they may get from day-to-day use by a pro, and to be weather-sealed. So, their may be a reason to buy Canon, and to pay a lot more, which is why I've stressed the optical quality aspects of Tamron, and not suggested that they are equal in all regards.

But for many people, the heavier build quality may not be an issue, but optical results are.

One more thing. If you've never used a high quality lens, be warned of one thing. You're dead right, it WILL likely leave you a bit disillusioned about the quality of other lenses. The sheer punch from a high quality lens, the vibrancy of colours and so forth .... well, it's an eye-opener. If you're content where you are, don't even test them. You may find it hard to go back to standard fare afterwards if you do.

[Saracen]

Oh, and one more thing. If you don't just want to take my view on this, you could ask at a specialist forum. The Digital Darkroom is a good place to start .... and I don't just say that because I co-founded it with the guy who currently runs it.


And before anyone else gets the idea to pimp their own forums, I DO have permission from HEXUS to do so .... and yet still rarely mention it.

[Hans Voralberg]

Nice forum any more that you can recommend Saracen ?