www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

I wonder if any of you Canon people can help me with my choice of lens.
I am on the verge of buying a 400D and I am going to get a Sigma 150 Macro lens for butterflies, but I have been offered a choice of twin lens packages. I photograph birds and scenery etc, as well as butterflies.

I am a total numpty when it comes to anything technical so your unbiased opinion would be very helpful. The local camera shop is pushing me toward option 2, but before I commit, I'd like your advice.

Option 1. EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 II + EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM (52mm)

Option 2. EF 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM + EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

There is £150 difference in the price.
As I use a high zoom bridge camera at the moment (Olympus SP-55OUZ) all this EF, IS and USM have me totally confused. Is the f/ the speed of the shutter and will all these lenses work on auto?

Any help would be much appreciated.
Denise

I would (personally) hesitate to go for either package.
I have the EF 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and it is far superior in both build quality and image quality to the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 II, and for a 'walk arond' lens is hard to beat for the price. It is a good general purpose landscape lens, and will close focus well enough for plant shots.
The other two, longer, lenses you mention are both very slow, and compromises.
I would advise you to go for the Sigma 150 Macro, and, if you decide to go for birds or animals later, go for a longer lens then. Canon 100-400, Sigma 150-500, both come to mind.
Whilst it is great to use local shops to get hands on feel for a camera, they are rarely competitive price-wise, and want to sell you what they have, not what you need!
Try an on-line retailer like warehouseexpress.com, or digitalrev or many others.
I actually bought a £2,500 Sigma lens new off E-bay from a Chinese vendor with no Problems at all.
They all offer no-hassle returns policies.
USM is Ultra Silent Motor
IS is Image Stabilisation (stops camera shake, and allows you to hand hold at lower shutter speeds)
The F speed is the maximum size of the aperture (confusingly the lower the number, the bigger the aperture) the smaller numbers allow more light in than the higher ones, and are also more expensive.
EF is a lens that cannot be used with a full frame Canon - e.g. 5D, only with 20D, 30D, 40D, 350D etc.
All the mentioned lenses can be used on full auto, but you will soon want to take more control yourself.
Good luck, have fun, and do not be afraid to ask any questions here.
Hamearis

Ham did you mean EF-S I agree with Ham , Lisa has the EF 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and its a good lens, having said that when I get my new Camera I'm going for a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC. Like ham I would say go with the 150 macro, but save up and get a better wild life lens, if you get the Canon 100-400 you won't even need a tripod

Gruditch

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/ ... 1fc837c2da

Try this link

You should never have listened to that idiot who told you to get that bridge camera, what do you say Ham

I'd say that the 17-85 is a decent walk-around lens and the 70-300 (that 70-300 is - others may not be) is actually relatively good. The other package is not worth mentioning. Fine, 70-300 does not have quite the reach of 100-400, nor is the build even close, but it still a good, sharp lens. The 17-85 is not up to the sharpness of the other one and the distortions in the wide end are something of a record. You can also forget smooth backgrounds because of the maximum aperture, but it still covers a very useful focal range for everyday use.

I think my choice for the budjet walk-around would be Tamron 17-50/2.8. Than lens is sharp and has good background blur due to the aperture. What it does not have is IS. It is also quite limited at the long end, but that can be covered with another lens. For example Tamron 90/2.8, Canon 100/2.8 or Sigma 105/2.8. And you'd have a macro lens to start with. Of course, the Sigma 150/2.8 will work for that as well - it just leaves a bit of gap between lenses. I should know - I started with Tamron 28-75/2.8 and Tamron 180/3.5.

I did look at that Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 it is a bargain at £192.99, but in the end I dicided on the Sigma 18-50 F /2.8 at £230.99. From the above link. Both worth a look Denise

Gruditch

Or try this link http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/aboutus.php

[quote]Ham did you mean EF-S[/quote]
I apologise. A slip of my typing finger.
EF is the prefix for Canon Autofocus lenses.
EF-S is the prefix for lenses usable on crop frame cameras only.

[quote]You should never have listened to that idiot who told you to get that bridge camera, what do you say Ham [/quote]
You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Incidentaly, I do agree that you may get a better wide to medium zoom lens by following the non-Canon route. Sigma, Tamron etc.
The exception to this is if you can afford one of the Canon L lenses - these are seldom matched, and never beaten in quality by the independant manufacturers (Sigma EX series lenses come very close).

All the above, of course, is just my humble opinion, and I am happy to bow to the superior knowledge and experience of others

Hamearis

Hamearis wrote:Incidentaly, I do agree that you may get a better wide to medium zoom lens by following the non-Canon route. Sigma, Tamron etc.
The exception to this is if you can afford one of the Canon L lenses

The other exception is Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM, which is good enough to be L. Unfortunately the price matches that.

Hamearis wrote:these are seldom matched, and never beaten in quality by the independant manufacturers (Sigma EX series lenses come very close).

IMHO so does Tamron's SP-series. The differences are that Sigma has HSM (= Canon's USM), while Tamron does not. Yet I'm quite satisfied with the focus speed of Tamron. Also, the Sigmas appear stronger. The Tamrons are more clearly plastic, but still quite strong. The quality variation seems to be higher in Sigmas, though that comment may get me properly flamed. The down side of this is that there is no guarantee of properly focusing sample from ANY manufacturer - not even Canon's L. Wider lenses are more prone to that problem.

I'd say option 2 without hesitation. The lens options are way better than those of option 1. You say you're goiung to get the sigma 150 on top of these, so for a beginner option 2 + that easily covers your all needs for the forseeable future for a pretty reasonable price.

Though the canon 100-400 is way better than the 70-300 it's also about 5 times the price I should think at just under a grand. Wait and see how you get on with the 70-300 as for the money it's pretty good. If you want something better than that spend the grand on the 100-400 later on... or even one of the newly announced sigmas.

I would just like to say thank you for the input given here. I am so glad that I asked and didn't end up with another lame duck. Thanks Gruditch for the links, I found them very helpful and I have bought from them. After a lot more research, and counting my pennies, I finally made a decision.

I have bought
EOS Canon 400D
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens

I will go for the smaller lens (if needed) when I can afford them.
Well thats me skint now! But I have a camera that I hope will give me years of pleasure.

Denise

Hi Denise,

Great choice (in my opinion!) - I have had the Canon 400D for a year now and just recently bought the 100-400 L lens which is fantastic. I still have difficulty getting sharp shots but that is down to me and not the camera / lens!!

Hope you have a great time taking photos this year.

Cheers
George

Denise wrote:I have bought
EOS Canon 400D
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens

Wow that is a good set up

Gruditch

I've seen some beautiful bird pictures on the POTN website taken with the 100-400 so it should stand you in good stead for many years. The Sigma 150 is also a fine lens.