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.
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.
1945194
I had a Canon 70-300 lens for about twenty years and continued to use it when I bought my new Rebel t1i. A year or so I fropped it and replaced with a digital one of the same focal length. Both these lenses have served me very well, as an amateur photographer. Excellent choice. A couple years ago i bought a 2x converter and have used it a surprising number of times. I like the results with that on, too.
747240
It is depending on you expectations as was said earlier. If you are shooting the concert itself, I don't think this lens is for you. But if you shooting the lead singer with the band in the background and the lead singer is you subject, this maybe perfect. I say this because you have to keep in mind that the background will be blurred. I'm assuming that this is a small intimate concert where you have the table in the front and center. This will not work too well with a big name concert where you're 100 rows back. BTW I am going on the therory of this lens. I have not tried to use it for a concert myself. But the low light feature will blow you away. Good luck. It is depending on you expectations as was said earlier. If you are shooting the concert itself, I don't think this lens is for you. But if you shooting the lead singer with the band in the background and the lead singer is you subject, this maybe perfect. I say this because you have to keep in mind that the background will be blurred. I'm assuming that this is a small intimate concert where you have the table in the front and center. This will not work too well with a big name concert where you're 100 rows back. BTW I am going on the therory of this lens. I have not tried to use it for a... » Read More It is depending on you expectations as was said earlier. If you are shooting the concert itself, I don't think this lens is for you. But if you shooting the lead singer with the band in the background and the lead singer is you subject, this maybe perfect. I say this because you have to keep in mind that the background will be blurred. I'm assuming that this is a small intimate concert where you have the table in the front and center. This will not work too well with a big name concert where you're 100 rows back. BTW I am going on the therory of this lens. I have not tried to use it for a concert myself. But the low light feature will blow you away. Good luck. « Show Less
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.
2253110
I bought it formy T2i and it's amazing. So much better than the 18-55mm that came originally with it. I did run firmware updates and added the lens to my camera's list for Peripheral Illumination Correction. I found the information on how to do it on google. But I love the lens, it works great on my T2i.
356777
It depends on what $200 is worth to you. Assuming you just have the 18-55mm for a season, will the loss of pictures zoomed between and including 1x to 2x in addition to the ability to get that without changing lens with the higher quality of extra low dispersion (ED), be less than $200 to you?
392884
OK, well here are my thoughts on the kit lens. It is lighter, so for backpacking orhiking it could be a really good thing. As you say, it is only an extra $75 or so,so there isn't much wrong with having it along with a truly fine lens, unless $75makes or breaks your budget. Get the kit lens AND as many other lenses asyou can justify.
1477491
Actually I find out the the much cheaper Canon 55-250mm IS lens which is on sale today for 144 bucks does a superb job of taking portraits as well. You can set it to 100mm to get equivalent of this lens (of course you can't go down to f2.8 but for your situation you don't want to) also you get an excellent telephoto lens - just not a MACRO lens but again that's not what you're looking for. I would save my 300 bucks and get that lens instead - I can tell you as i have both these lenses.
1736483
It's worth every penny, especially if you take portrait shots. I do not have the 18-200, but I have the 16-85 VRII. While the 16-85 is a great lens for outdoor shots, landscape and group photos, the quality of portrait I get from the 85 1.8 (or any prime lens for that matter) is way above any all around zoom. Most pictures I take with this lens are worth keeping.
2004641
hi. Do you plan to shoot more weddings or landscapes...? i think it could be the answer of your question. I think about buying this lens too. i am a wedding photographer, and wedding conditions are always dark light situations. So i need the 2.8 aperture. If you are more a nature photographer, so the 2.8 is not so needed. During wedding the IS can't help too much, because the people that you take are dancing, the low speed will be impossible to use, even with IS on.I hope it will hlep you.
182305
I second the recommendation for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens. It is about the only inexpensive lens that will perform up to the capabilities of the T1i sensor. and/orThe Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Auto Focus Lens - Refurbished is the kit lens that normally comes with the T1i. Buying it refurbished will save you about $20.
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.
1620737
I am very satisfied working in low-light conditions. How it will perform for you, is a guess, because I don't know which camera you would be putting it on. A lens will do what it is supposed to do when the camera meets or exceeds the lens' capabilities. On the Canon T1i, it does what I want it to. I'm sure it could be pushed to greater things, if attached to a more "high end" camera. I have panned a crowd, with only the stage lights burning, and gotten a satisfactory shot. Are there better lenses? Of course, but how "professional" do you have to be?
1794473
Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended!
763550
Hi, actaually I have this lens and had the 16-50. I got the nex 6 last year and sold the 16-50 lens because I felt the pics came out better in the 18-55. The focus was better and pics seems crisp to me in 18-55. Yes it's much heavier and the smaller to travel with. 16-50 made it really nice to go our the city with.... But I just couldn't take a good pic with the 16-50. I got the 18-55 for about $100 used. So I'm happy.
784056
Is the 18-105 worth buying over the 18-55mm any day. Especially you going to use with D5200. If you more money why not go for 18-200mm VRII or 18-300mm VRII. They are all around lenses. Good luck!