Canon 350D Lense Needed - Good Investment ?

[leinad]

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:thumbsup:, 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

[leinad]

*bump*

[gbeal]

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.

[Robert_T]

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:)

[RB]

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.

[leon]

cough, cough, :whistle:

Leon :thumbsup:

[Suzy_A]

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.

[Suzy_A]

That was suppose to be "30% or so less" in the previous post.