Hi,
I am headed to Europe in about a month and wanted to purchase a telephoto lens to go with my Canon Digital Rebel as I only have the 18-55 lens that came with it. Which lens would you recommend between these two:
Sigma 135-400 MM f/4.5-5.6 ASP AF APO
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
or is there another, better one in that same price range of $400-$600. I just want to shoot the sights in the cities and the people as well. Thanks a lot for any help.
For Europe I would spend my money on a better wide angle lens rather than a telephoto. I was there last summer for a month and used a Canon 17-40 f/4L exclusively and was very happy with the results. It worked great for all the sights and environmental portraits of me and my friends. If you want to save some money go for the Tamron 17-35 or Sigma 18-50 and then get a Canon 55-200 or older 70-210 for your telephoto shots.
Here are some of my pics from Europe if you are interested. A few were shot with my friend's Minolta A1, but most were with my Digital Rebel and Canon 17-40
Hi -- I am traveling around Europe now -- I chose to simply bring a small Canon point and shoot instead of my entire rig, but I also am traveling with a friend who brought his entire rig -- 20D + 70-200 f4 + 17-40 + 50 1.4 + tripod + accessories. He takes it almost everywhere he goes The only problem I forsee with getting the 70-200 f4 is the weight. In Europe you will be walking a LOT, and carrying around all your gear with you is probably a bit tiring. If you want a telephoto, I would choose the lightest and smallest option you can, and if I were you, I'd go with something that is decently fast (but doesn't need to be f2.8 or anything). Many of your shots are going to be handheld. Depending on if you're travelling with friends or alone, you may not have time to set up your tripod inside of a cathedral or on the street (but then again there will be times when you can use a tripod).
If you want to know the truth, there is quite frankly not too much of a need for a telephoto while in Europe, IMO. I mostly use wide angle to get landscapes and street scenes, and a 50 mm is a decent choice for capturing people and faces. A 70-200 might be good if you are far away from the action, and my friend uses it a lot.
I don't think you need a new wide angle. The 18-55 is going to be fine. Good wide angle lenses are overrated, and I feel you can achieve sharp results with cheap wide angles. They don't need to be as sharp wide open as other lenses, especially since much of the time you want to stop down to increase depth of field. And, I have seen the 18-55 compared to the 17-40 and there isn't much of a difference. For wide angle, my point and shoot gets results similar to a 17-40.
As for a telephoto, The 70-200 f/4 might be a good choice, but I don't think you need anything past 200 mm. You might want to get a wider lens than 70...maybe 28-200, so you don't have to switch lenses so much between your wide angle and telephoto. It will probably get annoying and you might miss fleeting moments.
As mdude85 and Chopstxxx stated, for Europe you need wide. Streets and other situations in tourist/historical areas can be narrow and the wider you can get the better. If you really feel you might need longer, for your price range the 17-85 IS or 28-135 IS would do well for landscapes in the countryside and in good light street shooting. The 70-200 is probably overkill and too tight in most situations. It depends on your shooting style. One lens recommendation - 17-85 mm; leave the tripod and home and have fun, there are many beautiful places there. Oh, one last thing, you may want to take a 50 1.8 for interiors and night low light.
How is your 18-55? Are you happy with the results? Some folks have very good copies of that lens and are very happy with it. Mine, like a lot of others, was very poor, very soft . A lot of variation.
If you are happy with your copy of the 18-55 then the 70-200 would make a great second lens. You'll be amazed at how sharp it is, and very, very well built. Not too heavy, certainly a lot lighter then the Canon 70-200 f/2.8.
The 17-40 is a great wide lens and would indeed be super useful for shooting the sights in Europe, and at f/4 it is fast enough to handle some lower light situations, especially if you bump up the ISO to 800/1600.
The last time I was in Europe, I only had the 28-135 IS, and it was fantastic. However it was on a film body. On my 20D, it just wasn't wide enough for my needs. I think you would find the same conclusion with the 28-135. Its a good lens for sure, just not wide enough.
I brought all my stuff on every trip I went on in Italy. My 50mm and 70-200 came in handy on a few occasions, but the 17-40 was on 95% of the time, and as someone mentioned invest in a good wide lense instead, if it's based on your journey to Europe - the 17-40 is a good choice.
But if your main need is tele, then you can't go wrong with the 70-200, sharp, fast focus, lovely colors and easy to carry and handhold.
First of all, check the May Popular Photography for a review of the 18-55mm, and stop listening to all the complaints about it. I knew it was a good lens long ago. I think that lens takes a lot of bad pictures because of the people who use it. Most are new to DSLRs and many are even new to SLRs. They learn on the 18-55, where they make all their mistakes. Then as they learn, they start buying lenses, and then credit the new lens for the good pix and the old lens for the bad ones.
Enough of that. If you want to minimize your budget, the 28-135mm IS is a very sharp lens. It is also fairly light weight. You can get it for around $400 US. On your DRebel, it is comparable in FOV to 45-216mm on a full frame 35. Supplement that with your 18-55 for wide angle, and you're set.
Alternative. If you want a single lens to take, the Canon 17-85mm IS would be it. Its FOV is comparable to 27-136 on a full frame 35. The IS works extremely well. It is somewhat overpriced, however. But if you can swing it. It could be the only lens you need. When I was last in Europe, I needed WA far more than telephoto. On that trip I was shooting video, but the situation was the same: close quarters resulted in the long end of the zoom being more than I needed and the wide end being not wide enough.
