Lens upgrade for 18-55 (600D)

[he56ys5ysu7w4]

Yeah, it really looked smaller on the photos, hell it even looked smaller in that glass cabinet they've kept all the precious L glass  mind you, it didn't LOOK very different from those, apart from the obvious difference in paint job.

At this point I am starting to admire my cheap plastic kit lens more and more... I mean it has decent IS, auto-focus that beats the Tamron (according to my limited experience in the shop), perfectly usable range and image quality that is more than enough for video. It is shocking how much more plastic, metal and precision glass is needed to get that F/2.8 constant max aperture.

At this point I am not sure that the pro's really justify the price tag, and it is clear that - for me at least - none of the 3rd party alternatives would bring enough gain in usability to bother.

Right!
Buying the Sigma 30mm prime has made me appreciate my zoom with IS/USM much more.

The way I shoot video is mostly handheld so IS is a must. Then I prefer the Quick Focus over manual cause the Focus Peak and small LCD doesn't work 100% for me, so a good HSM/USM is a must. I also want to be able to change focal length without swapping lenses or filming 40cm from the object so a zoom it is. Finally, f2.8 is the lowest I need to go as the shallow DoF and focusing becomes an issue with bigger apertures.
So the Canon 17-55 is perfect...except for its weight and size which really is a dealbreaker for me. If it was the size of my current Canon 15-85 (unfortunately with variabel aperture) then I'd sell all my other lenses and buy it instantly.
Ohh, well. Some day perhaps.

[weldroid]

[SWE] Japan Foto på Fleminggatan. [/SWE]

http://support.japanphoto.se/butiker/stockholm-fleminggatan/

They have everything locked behind glass, but the guy was very nice and showed me everything. They have Samyangs, Tokinas, Sigmas, Canons, even Rode video mikes.

[HCFilms]

Primes, primes, primes, it's all about primes.  I used to have a $100 50mm 1.8 that I sold to my friend.  I then but a $500 17-85mm.  It continues to drive me INSANE.  The difference in sharpness is astounding and that wide aperture is a blessing.  I can recommend the 50mm 1.8, with a Sigma 30mm. Don't buy the Canon 28mm.  It's just NOT good according to stuff I've heard.  If you're going for a wide angle the Canon 20mm is apparently really good.  Also maybe add an 85mm in there.  You don't need that immediatly though because you're using an APS-C camera.

[weldroid]

Well, after (too) much thinking  today I pressed "order" on the 17-55 F/2.8. Should have done some weeks ago really, because now I have to endure that 5-6 days before it arrives....

[he56ys5ysu7w4]

Well, after (too) much thinking  today I pressed "order" on the 17-55 F/2.8. Should have done some weeks ago really, because now I have to endure that 5-6 days before it arrives....

Thanks for the feedback. Myself I'm currently looking at 24-70's as I'm used to 15-85 but don't need the wider end.
But again the size. The Sigma 24-70 looks nice. :-)

[weldroid]

No IS I'm afraid, but apart from that it looks very nice indeed! 

[weldroid]

17-55 F2.8 came yesterday. I only had a few hours to play around with it (basically indoors, under less-than-ideal lightning conditions).
My initial impressions are somewhat mixed: build quality is OK I guess, definitely not "great" (lots of plastic, little bit of play on the focus ring, even more play on the zoom ring). 

Usability: heavy as f/ck, this helps with the micro-shakes though (also, the IS feels to be a tad better than the kit lenses IS).

F2.8 - as indicated earlier - is not a world apart from the 3.5 on the kit lens, under these lightning conditions both need noise reduction in post, which is a pity. Of course there is a LOT more noise with the kit lens, but after NR there is very little difference. Of course less noise also means better utilization of the available bandwith for the codec, but it's a 10% difference, not a 30%.

Sharpness: need to test with some ISO charts I have printed, but in practice the difference in sharpness is only visible when looked at at 1:1 on a computer screen: pretty much identical when it comes to video.

AF is again a bit better than the kit lens, but in low light it hunts too. Ultrasonic motor is a bit better (faster, more quiet) than the regular micro-motor on the kit lens, but it makes too little difference.

At this point I am trying to come up with a good reason why not send it back and so far I have not found one.  Maybe my expectations were a bit unrealistic, or I got a lemon (or a very good copy of the kit lens who knows).
 

[eikerir]

we recently did a review of the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, here it is in case it helps anybody in this thread. We show a lot of examples of its performance for video in low light, different focal lengths, different productions, etc. Hope it helps.

ENGLISH CAPTIONS AVAILABLE (CLICK CC)

[weldroid]

Thanks, that is a very nice review! 

After sending the 17-55 back I'm not sure if I really want an upgrade any more, the kit lens is so cheap and so cheerful, and the mighty Canon 17-55 F2.8 was around 5% better for stills and 10% better for video especially that the only difference was the little bit less depth of field (not worth the pricetag) and the little bit less noise (but under low light conditions it needed extra lights / noise reduction just like the kit lens).

One thing about the Sigma 17-50 I wanted to ask: are you doing much manual focusing with it? The range is half of the kit lenses range (30 degrees vs. 60 degrees) so it must be  pretty hard, innit?

[1%]

Reading amazon reviews and from what you say I wouldn't have bought this lens. Especially at the less than useful focal length (not wide enough, not enough reach). HSM and OS are only redeeming factors.

My tokina was worth every cent. Need to get the wide one to complement it. I have a sigma 70-200mm and hsm broke when lens fell, tried to fix it but ripped a cable. Sigma doesn't want to touch it and instead tried to upsell me. Sigma 28-105, too soft... I'm pretty much done with them except maybe for the prime 1.4 they have for video. They can't fuck up a prime, right?

[eikerir]

One thing about the Sigma 17-50 I wanted to ask: are you doing much manual focusing with it? The range is half of the kit lenses range (30 degrees vs. 60 degrees) so it must be  pretty hard, innit?

yeah we actually mention that in the video, it can be difficult for very subtle focus changes, of course after using it for a  while we got used to it but it can be a bit tough in the beginning.

[Chungdha]

I worked with the Sigma 18-55mm f2.8 build for EF-S and my friend bought it for really cheap. The lens worked quite well on the 550D, only for photography the lens is horrible in focussing at the wide end. Filming wise not much of a problem. However reading several review the Canon 17-55mm be what you want to buy as it better than others out there. However for me I wouldn't get any EFS lenses as they are only useable for crop sensors and I would like to upgrade to the 5D or a Full frame it would not be possible, so I rather only buy EF lenses.

[funkysound]

I used tons of different lenses since I bought the 550d and today the 600d.
Now my set is perfect for my usage which is most filming (also professional use). You can see down here what lenses did stay with me at the end. There are some "better" ones if you invest much more money but to tell the truth - non of my clients ever realized a difference when I was using the canon ums department for example.
Really good lenses are the Tamron ones - both of them. But especial the 17-50mm for normal use and on top because of the 3x zoom function in the 600d if you use the film modus.
Most of the lenses have their good and their bad sides - the sigma 30mm 1:1,4 for example isn´t very good (sharp) in the corners but this doesn´t matter at all if the (sharp) object you want to film is in the center - which means 99% of all pictures I make with it. And so on ...
You can read interesting informations about all lenses and more here:
http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/open_test/sigma_30/overview.php   or here:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

[n8ben]

At this point I am trying to come up with a good reason why not send it back and so far I have not found one.  Maybe my expectations were a bit unrealistic, or I got a lemon (or a very good copy of the kit lens who knows).
 

The kit lens you have is already a great lens optically, I'm not surprised you aren't finding a large difference in optical quality. The difference between f2.8 and f3.5-5.6 is only 2/3-2 stop, not drastic at the wide end. Unless you have decided that one stop or so is worth paying for than you aren't likely to be impressed. Although the long end's two stops should be noticeable as you're letting in 4 times the amount of light at f2.8. Every lens is a trade off. Very few lenses are perfect, and the lenses you'll fall in love with are the ones that are perfect for your style and application, not necessarily perfect for everyone.

I think we all start out reading pixel peeper reviews. They can be misleading, and I believe they get people thinking about lenses in unproductive ways. They may feel that they need to shoot test charts to see how good their lens is . These lens reviews have their place, just as MTF charts can be useful. However, most of us aren't printing poster size so the actual gains in sharpness usually aren't that dramatic or useful.

I find contrast, color, flare (I shoot outdoors in bright light with off camera flash a lot), and Bokeh more useful factors, so long as the lens offers the resolution I need (the kit lens does). Think of the many great shots you've seen. What was it that drew you to those images (or videos)? was your first thought "I like that images sharpness?". At least for me, it is typically contrast, color, shape, and texture that grab my attention and make an image stand out.

I will add that I tend to think about lens ergonomics as well when I look to buy a new tool. That is one thing that the kit lens lacks in several areas, although the trade off is that it is very small and light. Also, for someone like me that shoots a lot in manual mode with off camera flash a fixed aperture lens is usually preferable. If the aperture changes than my exposure changes, and the relationship between ambient light and flash is changed. It is just a bit easier to use a fixed aperture zoom in that scenario.

[1%]

Only thing is the kit lens I have has serious CA and other problems... it comes out in HDRS and wide shots (only place its useful) most. Maybe the newest IS one is better.

35-135 - very sharp
50-135 - even sharper
sigma 28-105 - super soft
kit lens - weak sauce

You can tell w/MTF more than with just F/2.8. At 2.8 you're also getting a very shallow DOF whcih is good or bad depending on what you're doing. Really the lower apertures are for people doing hand-held and indoor stuff or selective focus. F/4 gets pretty limiting pretty fast at an event where they dim the lights.