Would this be a decent replacement for my Canon T2i 18-55 kit lens or should I just keep saving? I shoot landscapes and small venue concerts mostly.
827133
It's a good lens for my needs. I have found the 18-300mm type lenses just don't do all that well, I think too much range to cover but this does well and being a f/2.8 it's better for darker shots. Heavier than a kit lens but worth it in my opinion.
827134
Both lenses share the same drawback: There's no constant aperture throughout the zoom range. This is a bummer if you want to zoom in during lowlight situations, because the aperture gets smaller the more you zoom. That said, the Sigma lens is certainly a step up. It's aperture is wider than the kit lens, so it performs better in dim light. And I'm surprised by how much I've enjoyed the macro feature. When I shoot videos of my kids, they run right up to the camera and I can keep them in focus no matter how close they get.I've had the Sigma for about a year and it's on my camera all the time. If you can get one for a good price, I'd say go for it. Both lenses share the same drawback: There's no constant aperture throughout the zoom range. This is a bummer if you want to zoom in during lowlight situations, because the aperture gets smaller the more you zoom. That said, the Sigma lens is certainly a step up. It's aperture is wider than the kit lens, so it performs better in dim light. And I'm surprised by how much I've enjoyed the macro feature. When I shoot videos of my kids, they run right up to the camera and I can keep them in focus no matter how close they get.I've had the Sigma for about a year and it's on... » Read More Both lenses share the same drawback: There's no constant aperture throughout the zoom range. This is a bummer if you want to zoom in during lowlight situations, because the aperture gets smaller the more you zoom. That said, the Sigma lens is certainly a step up. It's aperture is wider than the kit lens, so it performs better in dim light. And I'm surprised by how much I've enjoyed the macro feature. When I shoot videos of my kids, they run right up to the camera and I can keep them in focus no matter how close they get.I've had the Sigma for about a year and it's on my camera all the time. If you can get one for a good price, I'd say go for it. « Show Less
827135
it's an exceptional improvement, and it wold be good for landscapes and small venues. If you want something even better then go with nikon 17-55 f2.8 however that's around 1.4k dollars
827136
Both lenses share the same drawback: There's no constant aperture throughout the zoom range. This is a bummer if you want to zoom in during lowlight situations, because the aperture gets smaller the more you zoom. That said, the Sigma lens is certainly a step up. It's aperture is wider than the kit lens, so it performs better in dim light. And I'm surprised by how much I've enjoyed the macro feature. When I shoot videos of my kids, they run right up to the camera and I can keep them in focus no matter how close they get. I've had the Sigma for about a year and it's on my camera all the time. If you can get one for a good price, I'd say go for it.
316001
hi kelly, this lens is good for landscapes, but if you have the 18-55 lens you do not need this lens as the 18-55 will do the same. you loose about 2% on each side of the picture
1796675
It is a slight bit better than the 50mm 1.4...way better than the 18-55. It's not up to an L lens quality but it does slightly beat out the build of my 50mm 1.4
1192316
I have had the 18 to 200. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that lens. If you're predisposed towards it, I won't try to talk you out of it, BUT . . I really like the 18 to 140 on my daily carry D5200. Fits the job and fits my hands. VERY sharp with great contrast and saturation. BTW, my fair, civic gathering lens in my D300s is almost always the 18 to 300, so ya makes your choice and you take your chances. IMHO, as long as it says "Nikon" on, you can't go wrong. Pick one.
48515
Yes, this would work well with the T2i - if you want to do wide angle (mostly landscape) photography. This is a very good and sharp lens and is much more affordable than the 16-35 f2.8. L glass quality.
599173
Without knowing exactly what you are photographing, I would give it a qualified yes. However, if you are going to be photographing from a distance, then the kit lens of 18-55mm is not going to fill your needs. Depending on distance, you may need something like an 18-135mm or for even greater distance, something like the 55-300mm lens. Beyond that, you'll be looking at large aftermarket lenses in the 150-500mm range.
1833850
I have limited experience shooting weddings, but it's usually best/ideal to carry two bodies, one with a wide angle and one with a zoom. So yes, if I were shooting a wedding, I would want this lens. But I would use a 70-200 more. The only real drawback is that if you're shooting inside with ambient light, the f4 maximum aperture won't perform as well as a more expensive 1.8 or 2.8. That means high ISOs, long shutter speeds, etc. Outdoors it's golden.
518863
I have this lens, I used it for several months before upgrading to the 75-300 IS USM. If you don't want blurry pictures then you will have to spend the money on better tools. I take a lot of bird pictures and was able to track them using the non IS lens but it was very difficult and unless the pools where the competitions are held are in bright light you won't get sharp pictures. I did try using this one at our dance hall, (poor light for pictures) I eventually had to go to a 50 mm 1.4 that does great in low light. You wanting telephoto though, for the money the 75-300 IS at about $450 was the way that I decided to go and I really like what I get now. I have had my t2i for nearly two and a half years. Hope this helps you a little bit. If you want to see a few of my shots with the IS lens. My flickr page is lightninrod49.
990745
Congrats on the D5000 (and both great lenses you have). Be sure and get that 35mm down the road, believe me it will probably be the best 200$ you'll ever spend if you do any shooting indoors. I have tons of other lenses (including a 50mm f/1.4) so I held off for a while on getting the 35mm f/1.8, once I did finally get it I was kicking myself for not getting it sooner, it's that good. Happy shooting.
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
907947
It's a 2.8 Lens fixed at 90mm, so really it depends on how well your Camera does at a higher ISO. I use a Full Frame Camera Body, so it does well for me in low light. With my older Rebel T4I anything much over 800 ISO and the Photos suffer. This is "tack sharp" lens and does excellent Macro. The only noticeable thing to me is the motor is a bit noisy when capturing Focus. If your very far from The Stage, you may want a longer lens.
1986681
Hi Ling, it is a very good choice if you are not looking for a Canon lens, I have a Canon 550D and it is working perfectly on it.
608538
Hey, the focus is very fast and absolutely noticeable compared to the 18-55mm. Hope that helps. Kind regards
1023868
This is a fantastic lens, I love it and have it on one of my cameras all the time. But it is not the best for landscape photography, especially on an APS-C camera like the 60D. As Archman below said, I'd look for something with a wide angle in the 10-18mm range. Also concur--rent a couple of lenses if you can locally to see what you like best. Of course, you might pick something that was more than you planned to spend.... Good luck and have fun!
1773175
I think this is the best option without going nuts on budget, not cheap not so expensive. Distortion for Architectural is acceptable, obviously the more closer you are you will notice some, its not the 24mm or the zoom but believe me is sharp as hell, even more at f2.5 and f8 ... careful with a lil shift focus at night mostly at f4, other than that im super happy with this lens and i take it to travel a lot
987142
I owned the 50D and now own a 7D. I have had my 17-55 f/1.8 IS for over 2 years. I bought the 24-105 a year ago to replace my 17-55 hahaha yea let me say right now I am not selling my 17-55 and when shooting indoors the 17-55 f/2.8 is will be my first choice over the 24-105 f/4 IS. Indoors f/4 is slow period. I ended up buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to shoot indoors for low light and I LOVE it. Anyways on a crop body I would pick the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS for indoors unless its a really well lit room or I am using my 580 EXII. I am leaning to primes anymore and would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 for you. Another option is Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8 and you spend less then either of those lenses heck you can throw in a 50 f/1.8 and have 3 lenses for the price of 1 if you don't mind switching lenses. Nick
606484
I'm so glad there's something posted here - this is one of the lenses I'm considering getting my husband for Christmas. He has the Sigma 50-200mm lens right now and in my experience with it, it hasn't been too bad. Should he be happy with the 18-200?