Canon 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM v Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3?

[mattyjacobs]

ok, permission to shop from the wife!!! (The flash will be a birthday present)

Just to fill you in, I've got an EOS 350D, the kit lens, a 70-300 which never gets used and will probably appear on eBay soon, and the 50mm f/1.8 ... I'd love a nicer zoom lens for the outdoorsy stuff, where a nice zoom lens is good, for a few happy portraits on holidays, with a few scenery shots etc.

I played with the Canon 55-200 in a shop today, and liked it very much. Maybe I was more attracted to the 30D it was attached to (what a beast!), but I really liked this lens. It grabbed focus quickly, and quietly, and gave out really nice pictures.

For the same price however, I could get the Sigma 18-200 from Poon. The only positives that I'm aware of at the moment is the greater zoom range, which can already be covered by the kit lens, and the slightly faster aperture.

The negatives: it's not canon, and it would need a bigger CPL, which to me is a bit PITA.

But then, I could be potentially be switching lenses a lot, which could be more of an ongoing PITA ...

I'm happy with a lot of the scenic shots I've got with the kit lens, so I don't mind keeping that for the wide-angle stuff.

So, you've got $450 to spend ... which one would you get and why?

[petal666]

If it was me, I'd save for a few more weeks/months/years and buy a 2nd hand 70-200f4L for $700-750. It might be hard waiting but you would end up with a far better lens

[mattyjacobs]

Hi Petal,

I understand you - I give the same advice about coffee grinders. Save for a bit longer, upgrade well, upgrade once.

However, in roughly that many months/years, we're aiming to have started a small family, drop down to one income, still pay rent and payments on the new car ... so saving is pretty much limited to $4-500. And for some reason, I'd like to have something not pre-loved.

But thanks for the food for thought!

[petal666]

And for some reason, I'd like to have something not pre-loved.

ALL my lenses are 2nd hand, its the way to go. I've never had any trouble and I've owned a lot of lenses besides those I have now.

[moz]

I don't think either of those lenses is as good as the Canon 70-300. So you're not trading up, the question is what you want that the 70-300 doesn't do. Knowing that would make it much easier to have an opinion as to which would be the better lens.

Do you object to changing lenses? The 18-200 is the obvious choice.

Do you desperately miss the 55-70 range? The 55-200.

Do you just want to buy something? I have a LensBaby for sale...

For the money, I'd be looking for a used 70-200/4. Or possibly a new 85/1.8. It depends what you want to do with it.

[adam]

The flash is a birthday present? wow! HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
So did you get the 430EX?
Now you can buy yourself the 580EX and use it as the master to the 430EX slave. hehe
or spend the money on some flash modifiers - lightsphere, ominbounce, some colour gels

or the lenses. Between the two lenses you have listed, I'd say the 18-200, because it means you can walk around all day with it and not have to change lens. Or how about a fast prime? like the 85mm f/1.8 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4

[mattyjacobs]

I guess I should give some more detail huh ...

I've got the 50mm f/1.8, which I'm really enjoying.

The flash will come as a birthday present in Feb. Under a month to go!

I've been pretty happy with the kit lens (18-55) outdoors. Indoors, the 50 1.8 is great.

The 70-300 is heavy, and zoomed in to 300, there's heaps of camera shake (see my comments on the 55-200 in the next paragraph). And it's incredibly slow when using AF. Like, really slow.

What I really liked about the Canon 55-200 was that it was so light, so zoomed in to 200, I couldn't feel any additional weight, there was no camera shake problems (mucking around in the store, not the greatest light etc. And it was really really quick (and quiet) to focus. Playing with the 30D on continuous burst was quite fun

But then for a walkaround/holiday/candid lens it does miss that 18-55 range ... I guess it's not a huge drama to change, it's not like it takes very long. But then, with the sigma, it does all that ... hence my confusion!

I guess my underlying question was really 'is the sigma a lower quality lens that I would be better off staying away from?'

oh, and the Canon is actually a faster lens ... maximum aperture at 200 is bigger. duh.

Oh, and I guess the other question is, is the Sigma less likely to work with a newer body in years to come?

[mattyjacobs]

Do you just want to buy something? I have a LensBaby for sale...

Maybe it is just that!

Pardon my ignorance ... what's a LensBaby?

[mattyjacobs]

oops ... just had a look at my longer lens ... 75-300 f/4-5.6 III

Really bloody slow AF.

What about the 28-105 f/4-5.6 USM???

[moz]

Pardon my ignorance ... what's a LensBaby?

No, because almost anything you type into your web browser with regard to that question will get to a fast, accurate answer.

[mattyjacobs]

silly me. should have googled!

But after googling, it's probably not what I'm after right now. cheers anyway!

EDIT: now I'm re-considering ... how about a 28-200 USM or a 28-135 IS USM through Poon???

[petal666]

28-135 IS USM

Top lens.

[mattyjacobs]

yeah, and hopefully affordable through Poon!

or the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM ... if the 28-135 isn't affordable.

[mijbril]

you made your choice yet??

It just seems to me, that $ for $, you get more bang for your $$ when you go with a 3rd party lens, especially in your budget range. Not necessarily better, just more.

And so then, given your budget & the 2 lenses you're looking at, as neither is a particularly specialised lens, I'd take the Sigma as it "does more". As a walk-around, I've never read a bad review of it & it has always compared favourably to say, the more expensive Tamron of the same range.

You've said you don't like the idea of 2nd hand, but if you can put this money away somewhere & then sell the soul of your first born, you'll have enough to get the the 70-200 f/4L & the only one who will regret that will be your first born

So it's Sigma or save / wait / sell a kidney

[mattyjacobs]

I'd eventually deicded against either lens - I was more sold on the Canon lens, but after playing with it again, I was turned off completely, because I'd had a play with the 28-135, which was MUCH better.

But after my recent holiday, where I had some time to play with all three of my lenses, and after splashing out for the 430ex speedlight, I'm feeling that although bigger/better lenses would be really really nice, but not a life priority, or necessity for me. The three lenses I have do just fine for what I'm doing.

That, and considering some of our (my wife and I) plans for this year, it would just be selfish of me to save for and buy a lens, when we have more important things to save for.

Maybe one day in the future, there will be room in our budget to save for a better lens, like the 28-135, but not right now ... thanks for the help anyway!