Lens for 100D

greedy123

greedy123

greedy123

Associate
Joined
29 Feb 2008
Posts
1,173
Location
Nottingham
OK so I recently bought a Canon 100D as a second body to go with my 5dmkii. Firstly wow, amazing body for it's size/price.

Well... all my lenses are L lenses for the 5d2 and look like they are hanging off the 100D or would snap the mount if I tried to hold just the body!

I've mainly bought the 100D for portability (as the 5d2 is so heavy and bulky) but I do always admire quality results. I want to get a lens just for the 100D which is a good all-round lens that can stay on it 99% of the time. I'm normally good at making decisions however I'm struggling and I've narrowed it down to:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - Had one before with my 400d and it was amazing, just concerned a bit about it's weight and age compared to some of the other options. 645g. £630

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - A nice range of lengths for an everyday lens, but I wonder if for the extra few £s the 17-55 would be better. 575g. £540

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - Newest production lens, new STM autofocus so great for video, light, great range, obviously quality will be lower though as a result. Half the price of the 17-55 however! 480g. £329


So tough decision so make, hopefully someone can help me decide!

Many thanks!
 
Out of those the 15-85mm would get my vote but have a look at the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 HSM OS?
I've got one and it's superb, its got a lovely balance between range, size and aperture and the OS is superb.
 
I was also thinking Sigma 17-70 is an option - I have recently got one (the newest 2.8-4 C [for contemporary] version) - £350 new - 2% topcashback and have been quite impressed - I don't own any of the other lenses on your list although I have seen it compared to the 15-85. It's about 470g - important note: the 'middle' version of this lens that is 2.8-4 but not 'C' is heavier.

It depends if you feel 70mm is long enough and you're happy with third party.
 
Last edited:
Of the three you've listed I'd probably go 15-85mm as it is supposed to be excellent.

I had the origional sigma 17-70mm non OS and found it a great walk about on a crop and it is a decent size and weight for a small setup.

It's a shame canon don't make a pancake 20mm or 30mm f2 or similar as it would be a killer combo on a small body.
 
I have the Nikon equivalent of the 15-85 and for my pipes it is excellent, very sharp, contrasty lens, very handy focal length going from a noticeably wider starting point is great for landscape work.

My only gripe with the Nikon, and the same applies to the canon, is it is not a value for money lens relative to the f/2.8 options which many variable aperture zooms are (many of them a re eal bargains, these just have an expected price relative to performance).
 
Many thanks for the replies.

I've had a sigma lens in the past and wasn't convinced to go third party again.

I'm certainly leaning towards the 15-85mm now. It is the best all-round out of the three it appears and the reviews I've read have been very positive.

I've not bought a new lens for a couple of years now, I used to buy on the bay but all the ones on there look dodgy! Any recommendations?

I am tempted to go to LCE in town but I've never bought from them before. Do they tend to throw in filters etc to sweeten the deal?
 
I brought my 17-35 from LCE, didn't get anything free but managed to get a fair few quid off it with the added bonus of a 6 month warranty :)
 
What's the primary use for the lens? 17-55 and 15-85 are both excellent from an IQ standpoint, but obviously one has range and the other has aperture.
 
Ksanti said:
That attitude will have you missing out on some real gems over the next couple years. Third party manufacturers aren't just making cheap inferior alternatives any more.
Click to expand...

I know. I have the Sigma 150mm macro and it's great. I just don't feel as comfortable with them as canon's own. Maybe it's just the feel, it feels more plastic.

CGrieves said:
What's the primary use for the lens? 17-55 and 15-85 are both excellent from an IQ standpoint, but obviously one has range and the other has aperture.
Click to expand...

Just general use, holidays, family events, day trips with the girlfriend. Anything requiring high quality outputs such as at work I will be using my 5dii still.

I'm leaning towards range over speed as the output for such pics will be relatively small so iso noise isn't as much an issue. I suppose the main thing I will be missing with not having the 2.8 is the bokeh. The 15-85 is lighter and smaller than the 17-55 so it's more portable too.

I should add I already have the following lenses:
Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 135 mm f/2.0L USM
Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO EX DG HSM Macro
though I'm thinking of getting rid of a few under used ones.
 
greedy123 said:
Just general use, holidays, family events, day trips with the girlfriend. Anything requiring high quality outputs such as at work I will be using my 5dii still.

I'm leaning towards range over speed as the output for such pics will be relatively small so iso noise isn't as much an issue. I suppose the main thing I will be missing with not having the 2.8 is the bokeh. The 15-85 is lighter and smaller than the 17-55 so it's more portable too.

I should add I already have the following lenses:
Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 135 mm f/2.0L USM
Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO EX DG HSM Macro
though I'm thinking of getting rid of a few under used ones.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorted then- you have some excellent aperture options in the general purpose range, you're only missing a lightweight walkaround. I have the 17-55 and it is undeniably substantial.
 
CGrieves said:
Oh, sorted then- you have some excellent aperture options in the general purpose range, you're only missing a lightweight walkaround. I have the 17-55 and it is undeniably substantial.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I certainly have fast lenses if and when required. I remember the 17-55 being a very big lens when I had it on my 400d 4 years ago. On the 100D I can only imagine it being even bigger than I remember. Lightweight and portable has been the driving force for buying the 100D and thus the new lens so I'd being taking a step back I think to get another big lens.
 
a1ex2001 said:
It's a shame canon don't make a pancake 20mm or 30mm f2 or similar as it would be a killer combo on a small body.
Click to expand...

Nearest that Canon do is the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, which is apparently very nice and quite cheap.

Also if you wait a little while you might be interested in the

Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM | C

It is part of the newly revamped Sigma 'C' line of lenses (stands for 'C'ontemporary - they also do the 'A'rt and 'S'port lines as well). The 18-200 has only recently been announced (6th Jan) but judging by their recent efforts it is likely to be a cracking bit of kit.

Some details can be found at

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/0...d-18-200mm-f3-5-6-3-dc-macro-os-hsm-superzoom
 
Last edited:
Just been and bought the 15-85mm. Seemed nice in the shop so going to give it a try for now. I looked for the 17-70 Sigma but they didn't stock it unfortunately.

Time to get shooting :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom