Replacement 350D lens

inferno · 20 Mar 2006 at 17:33

What lens would you suggest i replace the standard 350D lens with?

I saw the sigma 18-50mm F2.8 which looked quite promising any other ideas?

DRZ · 20 Mar 2006 at 17:35

Do you want to cover the same focal range or do you want to add to it?

inferno · 20 Mar 2006 at 19:38

I already have a 70-300 IS lens so around the same. definately under 80 mm

DRZ · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:04

Do you have a budget?

inferno · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:09

around £300 but if there is nothing good in that range then i will have to pay more.

Sleepyd · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:14

There's a 17-70 coming out isn't there?

inferno · 20 Mar 2006 at 21:36

not sure whether i should get the sigma 17-70 or 18-50

Gamefreak501 · 20 Mar 2006 at 21:39

17-70 seems to have a better range on it...although you'll have to compare their optical performance!

Sleepyd · 20 Mar 2006 at 22:36

With the Sigma 18-50 it has been reported that it has quite a bit of CA but has very good centre sharpness and fairly good border performance on a 1.6 crop.

There's a decent tecnical review of it here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28/index.htm

As for 'real world' performance there are samples on pbase.

Deleted member 11679 · 20 Mar 2006 at 22:58

I was under the impression the kit lens was pretty much as good as it got for kit under £250-£300? Well, not significant enough to be worthwhile in a purchase anyway.

Tom

DizMatt · 20 Mar 2006 at 23:00

for the same sort of range I'd look at the canon 17-85mm IS
or get something a bit wider if that's your thing
the above lens is a great quality walkabout lens for the money I think

Sleepyd · 20 Mar 2006 at 23:35

DizMatt said:
for the same sort of range I'd look at the canon 17-85mm IS
or get something a bit wider if that's your thing
the above lens is a great quality walkabout lens for the money I think

Possibly if you remove the distortion at both ends of the zoom range - it's very noticable.

Sysagent · 21 Mar 2006 at 21:30

I updated my 350d kit lense with the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8 and I haven't had the kit lense on since not once...

It's a good lense for price and seems to be visually clearer than the standard kit lense, also f/2.8 is a god send for low light situations, it also seems to excel at macro shots as well as you're day to day landscapes.
If anything the only critiscm I have of it (if it is one) is that it is significantly heavier than the kit lense which really isn't a bad thing at all, oh and if you have a filter set you will need to change it to 72mm...

Check my photoblog for some samples of images from it (link in sync), and don't be afraid to ask any questions if you are still unsure.

Russ

scoop · 22 Mar 2006 at 10:46

The new Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 is getting good press; there's a sneak preview of the test results in the forums at Photozone here. Worth comparing the charts with those already on the site for the 17-85 USM.

Looks to be better overall than the 17-85 in terms of sharpness and distortions, with lower levels of CA. Also is ca £200-250 rather than £400-450

Full review should be interesting, but would complement the 70-300 very nicely and fits the budget.

mrk · 22 Mar 2006 at 12:57

The thing about sigma lenses is the chances of getting a soft sample are 50/50

Loads of people have complained about the 18-50/24-70 and 24-60 2.8s being soft wide open but then again loads have credited them for being sharp all round.

It just depends on the sample you have really. I had the 18-200 sigma on my old 350D and it was nice, fast and sharp with minimum softness on the edges but many people complained about it being too soft at wide and 200mm even though I didn't have this problem.

The 18-50 is a nice fast and sharp lens though and at 50mnm it's as sharp or sharper than the 50mm 1.8 at 2.8.

Replacement 350D lens

Deleted member 11679

Deleted member 11679