Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
Allison Feckless Swooner
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes |
|
Allison
Feckless Swooner
|
Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:12 am
|
|
|
As some may recall, I bought a Rebel xsi with a Sigma 18-125 lens on it from Jim Dockery. Santa brought a better lens, the Canon EFS 17-85 with IS. It's quite a bit heavier and feels lens-heavy in my hands. Initial impressions are that it is much better glass.
Tell me what the advantages are to both, and if there is any reason to keep the old lens for the 4 ounce weight savings.
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
Better glass almost always is heavier. Especially low light glass.
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
Allison Feckless Swooner
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes |
|
Allison
Feckless Swooner
|
Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:53 am
|
|
|
I didn't know that. I can say that with the few pictures I have taken thus far, in low light, the pictures definitely seem better.
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hulksmash Cleaning up.
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Posts: 7113 | TRs | Pics Location: Arlington |
|
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:31 pm
|
|
|
Not trying to hijack this thread, but I'm curious about something.
All zoom lenses suffer from chromatic aberration to some degree. It's physics.
So camera manufactures employ an in camera software fix. Is there a way to enable/disable this feature somewhere in the menu settings on a rebel? I wonder if Canon even applies the software fix when using Sigma lens. If not, it would put the Sigma at a disadvantage regardless of quality. Just a thought anyway.
"Bears couldn't care less about us....we smell bad and don't taste too good. Bugs on the other hand see us as vending machines." - WetDog
Albuterol! it's the 11th essential
"Bears couldn't care less about us....we smell bad and don't taste too good. Bugs on the other hand see us as vending machines." - WetDog
Albuterol! it's the 11th essential
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
Im a Canon guy and I tend to stick with Canon L lenses.
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
Opus Wannabe
Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 3700 | TRs | Pics Location: The big rock candy mountain |
|
Opus
Wannabe
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:51 pm
|
|
|
The 17-85 is a pretty good lens. I had that on my 20D and 40D for about 5 years before it broke. A lot of my photos up to 2009 are from that lens. Really useful range and pretty good quality. It's a little fuzzy at the wide end if you use it wide open but if you drop it down at least 1 stop it's better. The IS is useful too. I replaced it with a Canon 15-85 (basically the new version of 17-85).
Can't speak for that Sigma lens, but in general the all-in-one type lenses that go from a wide angle to long telephoto tend to sacrifice quality to get that range. Unless you have something else that covers the range from 85-125 I'd say keep the Sigma. But you'll probably have the Canon on your camera more often.
For the lens profiles, Lightroom has options for both Canon and Sigma that can be applied afterwards. Not sure if the camera itself does that in JPG mode since I shoot RAW.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Allison Feckless Swooner
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes |
|
Allison
Feckless Swooner
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:30 pm
|
|
|
Wow, I didn't know about Lightroom. Looks interesting. Is it better for foto editing than Photoshop? I need to upgrade and I have a friend at Adobe so I can get the discount. Which should I get, or will I need both? It is time for me to upgrade.
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
|
Back to top |
|
|
Allison Feckless Swooner
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes |
|
Allison
Feckless Swooner
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:39 pm
|
|
|
@ Pbj-got to pay the mortgage, no white lenses in my future. Champagne taste, beer budget. Plus better gear won't make me a better photographer as much as practice will.
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gil Member
Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Posts: 4063 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Gil
Member
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:58 pm
|
|
|
Hear, hear! Sounds like you've got a great lens -- better to focus (so to speak) on taking photos.
Friends help the miles go easier.
Klahini
Friends help the miles go easier.
Klahini
|
Back to top |
|
|
seawallrunner dilettante
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 3309 | TRs | Pics Location: Lotusland |
Hulksmash - DXO software removes all lens aberrations. Now this is expensive sw (about $100 per seat, when on sale) but it does the job well.
When you purchase and download the software, you register the lenses that you own. The software removes the lens aberrations, and provides a unified format for the images that are taken. Beautiful, complex, work.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hulksmash Cleaning up.
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Posts: 7113 | TRs | Pics Location: Arlington |
|
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.
|
Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:43 am
|
|
|
What no support for Pentax?
"Bears couldn't care less about us....we smell bad and don't taste too good. Bugs on the other hand see us as vending machines." - WetDog
Albuterol! it's the 11th essential
"Bears couldn't care less about us....we smell bad and don't taste too good. Bugs on the other hand see us as vending machines." - WetDog
Albuterol! it's the 11th essential
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jim Dockery Member
Joined: 12 Sep 2007 Posts: 3092 | TRs | Pics Location: Lake Stevens |
Allison, if you remember the reason I sold that lens was my purchase of the 15-85 that Opus has, great lens IMO. I too lust after some L glass, but worry about carrying it all, and can't justify the $$$ until I start selling more pics (chicken & egg thing - like all photo geeks I think having the next great thing will take my pics to the next level).
The lens aberrations are not affected if you shoot RAW, so I deal with them in Photoshop (which I use - for final tweaking and using layers it's a must). Adobe RAW converter (used in both Photoshop & Lightroom) now has lens corrections built in similar to DXO, but you have to turn it on.
Like you said, getting out there and using your gear is more important than reading about it, or wishing for more/better. Have fun using it in the new year!
|
Back to top |
|
|
Opus Wannabe
Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 3700 | TRs | Pics Location: The big rock candy mountain |
|
Opus
Wannabe
|
Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:30 am
|
|
|
If you can get Lightroom at a discount I'd go for it. It took me awhile to get a workflow down switching over from Photoshop, but now I use Lightroom almost exclusively. Non-destructive editing is really awesome. It's also great for cataloging and organizing stuff.
|
Back to top |
|
|
ajax stronger than dirt
Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 275 | TRs | Pics
|
|
ajax
stronger than dirt
|
Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:50 am
|
|
|
They're just different. Photoshop can do everything lightroom can (edit-wise) but is slower. Lightroom is more limited but much faster and, for me, much easier and faster to get the results I want. If I want to spend a long time on one particular image photoshop is good, but going through hiking photos lightroom is a dream and fun. I imagine lightroom would cover almost all of your needs but I'm not sure. Many people would choose photoshop if they could only choose one, but many would also only choose lightroom. I'm in the lightroom camp. If I could have only one, I'd choose lightroom. It makes going through pictures after a hike fun and speedy, rather than a lengthy chore.
Regarding lenses, shoot what you want. The only thing is the lens you got might be heavy and prevent you from bringing your camera sometimes? I don't think there is any reason to keep the 18-125 unless you really need the tele end (85-125).
When you use your 18-125, what focal lengths do you end up shooting most often? Do you usually have it at 18mm, for instance, or maybe you hover around 50mm? That could be an indication of what lenses to go after in the future.
I don't find that range too useful, especially for landscapes. We can't really answer that question though unless you tell us what you like to shoot and give more information.
This is what I personally shoot and enjoy: I love the ability to get super wide (at great quality), so I have a 12-24 wide angle. They have similar lenses to mine that are much lighter nowadays, too, if you value that. I have a 50mm prime that is awesome quality and, best of all, great shallow depth of field and is ridiculously light and cheap. No excuse not to own that lens. I find that combination covers almost all my hiking needs, and if I ever need more zoom I have a 70-210 that is way more than I ever need. I don't find myself wanting to use it very often.
I'm a huge advocate of prime lenses because I think they are light, greaty quality, and that incredible depth of field ability. I never miss not being able to zoom within the 25-75 range, a 50mm is the perfect balance for me. I love walking around with it, and the creative control available due to the large aperture. Those big zooms are just so big, heavy, and slow (f/stop-wise) so you don't have as much creative control. Jack of all trades, master of none.
But there is such a variety of lenses because everyone has a different feel for what they want. I'd encourage you to keep the 18-85, sell the 18-125, and try out the 50mm f/1.8 though and see what you think. It's almost the perfect portrait lens too, if you like those. Awesome for family shots. If you find yourself using a certain range of the 18-85, you can look into other lenses in that range. For example, if you long for something wider, get a a wider lens to complement or replace with a wider zoom plus a 50mm prime. Or if you need more reach, get a tele or a 135mm or 200mm prime or something.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6305 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
I had both of these lenses on my Rebel (1st gen) in the past and the 17-85 was MILES better than the Sigma. I always had problems shooting at the long end of the Sigma - wide open above ~80mm it's utterly useless (at least my copy was) because the edges were so blurry and out of focus. The image stabilizer in the Canon lens makes a big difference too. The only advantage the Sigma lens holds is that it's got longer reach, but from my experience, that extra reach didn't provide any benefit unless I stuck the camera on a tripod, so it's really not helpful in terms of walk around. No reason at all I'd recommend going with the Sigma.
However, if you want something a bit lighter, I ditched the Canon 17-85 and switched to the Sigma 17-70 (no IS), and I would unequivocally say that the 17-70 is a better lens than the Canon 17-85. You do lose a little zoom and the stabilizer, but the picture quality is better and it's faster (the Canon is f/4-5.6 and the 17-70 is f/2.8-4).
|
Back to top |
|
|
|