Ripley Posted December 16, 2007 Share Posted December 16, 2007 (edited) My darling husband has said that he will buy me a better lens for my 350D to replace the kit lens it came with. Lord knows, I've worn the poor bugga down with my crapping on about how the kit lens is not suiting my needs (stamps foot). I've got his credit card in my hand (woo hoo!) and I'm on line with a store that has given me good service before (plug: Quality Camera sales in Perth which also has it cheaper than what I've seen in Sydney). I bought a 2 stop grad ND filter from them last week, it arrived in 2 days, owner chatted to me at length about them on the phone too, but haven't tried it out yet. I was thinking of the Sigma 17-70mm as it says it functions well in low light conditions - something that the kit lens doesn't do. Am I wrong in thinking that this means a 17mm is really a 28mm on a Canon 350D DLSR? Not sure with this. Then there is the Canon 24-85mm which is slightly more expensive. Have no idea about Tamron. I want it for landscapes as I've booked us in to Binna Burra Mt Lodge in the Lamington Nat Park, Qld, where there is a wealth of scenic photographic opps. Edited December 16, 2007 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted December 16, 2007 Author Share Posted December 16, 2007 Forgot to mention, I now have that Canon 1.8 50mm that others here have bought. Tried it out the other day outside but needed to fit my ND filter to it when using its widest aperture to get better results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossumCorner Posted December 16, 2007 Share Posted December 16, 2007 Am I wrong in thinking that this means a 17mm is really a 28mm on a Canon 350D DLSR? Yes and no. It is the equivalent focal length of a 28mm lens on a 35mil film SLR which is "the standard". Mixing old-speak and new-speak can be confusing, it's like trying to compare pounds/shillings/pence with dollars/cents, then using a formula to factor in some inflation. It's a nice problem to have isn't it. I'd like something wider angle than the Nikon 18-70 I use for landscape type shots. Looking now at the Sigma 10-20 but hard to justify almost $1000 if it does not get a lot of use. Nikon would be $2,500 so it will be Sigma if anything (tried a Tokina and Tamron in that range but the Sigma seems the best of them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted December 16, 2007 Author Share Posted December 16, 2007 PC, that store I mentioned in WA has the Sigma 10-20 for $687.50. http://www.qualitycamera.com.au/product_in...roducts_id=3308 The 17-70mm I want is $450.00. Cheaper than what I've seen in Sydney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Ripley: Will email you about the 17-70. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 (edited) Thanks, chezzyr. I've decided to be boring and go with my first choice. After googling I found the best price right here in the building I work in. Imagine that! Didn't even know they sold lenses! I've just put a deposit on the last sigma 17-70 they had and husband can pay the balance later this week. Lens is $425, Christmas special. If it doesn't suit my needs, I'll sell it and buy a 10-20mm when I'm more financial. Edited December 17, 2007 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 (edited) I'm late to this but I adore my Sigma 17-70! I've had mine for ages and it has been my go-to lens for everything I do including low light conditions where it shouldn't work as well as it does. You're going to love this lens...let me know if you have any questions at all! The 10-20 Sigma is also a nice lens - I just encouraged a friend to get one as the Canon 10-22 was out of her budget. I don'tk now what you are shooting, but the 10-20 is more of a "special" lens. Mine doesn't get enough use...that 17-70 is just right for so many things! The 10-20 is a great lens for wide scapes - you might want to check around local camera shops to see if you can rent one, sometimes it's very reasonable. I just put a shot with my Canon 10-22 at 10mm up here...I used to have the Sigma 10-20 but flooded it. The insurance pay out on it bought me the Canon as the price on it had dropped, otherwise I'd have another Sigma in a heartbeat. Also, check out ordering lenses from the US...if it's under a grand there's no futzing around with customs etc. I order a great deal of stuff from the US and the shipping time is usually less from there to me than from the East Coast to me, I kid you not. And even with the higher shipping charge, I come out way ahead. B&H, buydig.com, newegg.com (only when they have specials on), sigma4less.com and beachphoto.com are all suppliers I've used with great results. Have fun with the new glass and let's see some shots! Edited December 19, 2007 by kja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted December 19, 2007 Author Share Posted December 19, 2007 Thanks, kja. The lens is wrapped and under the tree. It's not half obvious that is what it is - it's the perfect box shape - but I'm not allowed to open it until Christmas Day. Going to use it up at Binna Burra Lodge in Qld and around that region. I'm a bit scared to show you my shots in case I don't like them, but hopefully the theory I have learned can be put into practise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now