#1  
Old 17-05-2008, 01:33 PM
leinad's Avatar
leinad (Dan)
Registered User

leinad is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 1,307
Canon 350D Lense Needed - Good Investment ?

Hi Guys,

recently acquired a Canon350D modded camera.
Today I'm looking at getting a lense, and wasn't sure if I should just get the cheap Canon EF-S 18-55mm lense, or invest a little more for the Sigma 17-70mm lense.

Terrestrial shots with the Sigma lense look beautiful, but can anyone recommend how it performs also for astro work ?

The Sigma lense is about $200-250 more than the standard Canon lense, but looks to be quite a performer. Almost near an L lense?

Thx
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17-05-2008, 03:43 PM
leinad's Avatar
leinad (Dan)
Registered User

leinad is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 1,307
*bump*
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17-05-2008, 04:26 PM
gbeal
Registered User

gbeal is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4,345
If you don't have a lens at the moment, and can afford it, the L stuff is the best. I have the 17-40 F4L, and it is a ripper for daylight as well as dark.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17-05-2008, 04:45 PM
Robert_T's Avatar
Robert_T
aiming for 2nd Halley's

Robert_T is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,959
I've just picked up the 17-70 today and am keen to see myself how it goes for Astro. I can't comment on that yet, but it certainly is an excellent lens for Macro photography
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17-05-2008, 05:10 PM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 25,732
Can't comment on the Canon EF-S 18-55mm, never used one, but I'd say you're better off with the Sigma 17-70mm.
Mike (Iceman) uses one and he's very happy with it.

Do a search for Sigma 17-70mm on the forum and see what he and others done.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17-05-2008, 06:56 PM
leon's Avatar
leon
Registered User

leon is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Posts: 12,430
cough, cough,

Leon
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18-05-2008, 08:46 PM
Suzy_A's Avatar
Suzy_A
Registered User

Suzy_A is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fremantle
Posts: 237
I have heard the 18 - 55 f3.5-5.5 called a "transparent body cap". In other words, the images are so bad, you might as well not bother with a lens. If you use the 18 - 55 f3.5 - 5.5, expect your stars to be nice big blurly blobs. Actually, the new 18 - 55 IS is suppose to be much better than the old non-IS version.

If you want a 'standard' zoom for astro use, you need either the 17-55 mm f2.8 (RRP is $2000), or the 17 - 40 mm f4 (RRP $1450) or the 16 - 35 mm f2.8L (RRP $2960). If you shop around, you can get these for 30 or so less than the RRP.

If you don't want to spend lots of money, then get the 18 - 55 IS f3.5 - 5.5 or the (much better) sigma and use them for happy snaps and holiday photos AND get a 50 mm f1.8 for about $130. The lens construction is crap - all plastic - and the autofocus is slow and noisy, but the optics are very good. Or an alternative would be the more expensive 50 or 60 mm macro - they are VERY sharp lenses, or the 50 f1.4. Other alternatives are the 35 mm f2 or the 28 f2.8 which are about $400 and $300. Or the 85 mm f1.8 for about $500.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18-05-2008, 08:49 PM
Suzy_A's Avatar
Suzy_A
Registered User

Suzy_A is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fremantle
Posts: 237
That was suppose to be "30% or so less" in the previous post.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement