I'm still waiting on my new EOS 7D - which is a saga that has been unfolding on Twitter.

To try and cheer myself up, I'm doing a spot of lens shopping.

Essentially, I'm after a reasonable walkabout fast zoom. Currently I usually screw a Sigma 28-300 on the camera, but I want something a little less clumsy for mooching about with.

I would really like the Canon EF 24-105 f2.8 L, but that's a fair bit outside my budget. Dropping down the scale a bit, I've been mulling the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... /ref=nosim

As both my old and new DSLRs have an effective 1.6x enlargement due to the APS-C sensors, this will get me close enough to the 24-105 range.

Anyone have any opinions, experiences, thoughts?

I've got the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM on my 50D and I'm pretty happy with it. It's a bit on the tubby side (790g, 82 mm filter thread) but the image quality is spot on. I guess a bit better macro ability would be useful but it's actually got a slightly closer minimum focusing distance than the Macro version (38 cm vs 40 cm) although I'd doubt you'd really notice. Autofocus is very responsive as well thanks to the HSM. Costs a bit more than the Macro version (about £200 on a quick look about) but still £300 cheaper than the Canon L equivalent.

Thanks for that. It does seem this Sigma hits the right spot for most people.

I am very much trying to get bright glass now. A couple of previous acquisitions, while good lenses, suffer for having poor low light abilities, and consequent depth of field issues.

A few of my photo comp entries have been low light ones with that lens (Pathway into darkness for example). The main issue is it doesn't have any image stabilisation so it needs to be rock steady in really low light. Depends what you're trying to achieve of course

I like the look of the Sigma. The equivalent Tamron is there too and a bit cheaper. Or how about the Sigma 17-70? It's not a constant 2.8 (2.8-4.5 IIRC) but it will give you a bit more on the wide end.

Good thinking, but I'm not too bothered about the wide end, if I'm honest. I've already got a Sigma 10-20 which has plenty of wide! If I'm right, the 17-70 is specifically for smaller sensor cameras. If one day, when I'm rich enough to be able to afford it, I move to full frame goodness, the 24-70 will still be usable.

I must confess to being a bit of a Sigma fan. In my experience, the Tamrons tend to be a bit cheaper for a reason - even if my experience might well be a few years out of date.

Had I known this I would have said no to the 17-70 also

I've got a Tamron and a Sigma in my bag and tbh I like them both. The Tamron certainly feels more expensive than it ought to which suprised me and I wouldn't be put off buying another (17-50 f2.8 to replace my kit lens pleeeease!). The Sigma too is nice and had proved invaluable for me the past year. I actually wouldnt mind a play with the 10-20 you have and the 70-200 wouldnt go amiss either.

Would somewhere like Jacobs not stock both? Maybe they'd let you have a play on your body (that does not sound right at all! I know what I meant lol)

We don't have any really decent local camera stores. Our nearest Jacobs is in Kingston, which is an hour away and expensive to park.

I was originally going to buy a Tamron 28-300 zoom years ago. We happened to be in Sheffield, and made a point of dropping into their store there. The guys let me try the lens on my camera, but actually recommended the Sigma - because it was slightly cheaper, and because the lens mount was metal, while the Tamron was plastic. The autofocus on the Sigma was a lot quicker and quieter, too.

So, I've tended to stick with Sigma since. All this because I can't afford decent Canon glass.

Been having a rethink, and may well go along the lines of a 17-50mm.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sig ... t/p1519630

Trying to justify the purchase of one of these:

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-10-20mm-f3-5-ex-dc-hsm-lens-canon-fit/p1032428

Al

I have that one. It's a lot of fun. You can get stupidly close to objects with it. At 10mm it's not far off a semi-fisheye.

Ford Thames Trader by Snaptophobic, on Flickr

It's also good for landscape stuff, but don't expect to be able to use it really effectively in low light situations without a tripod. It's quite slow. The large front element means the filter ring is huge, making accessories expensive. I can't fit my Cokin filter mount on it without vignetting.

Still, an excellent addition to the camera bag.

Hi Heather,

The 24-105 is a f/4 lens rather than f/2.8. It's my main lens, I use it on a cropped body (where it is 38-168mm) and a full frame sensor, and for me it offers the perfect walkaround, it stays on my camera 80% of the time. For me the IS is superb and allows me to shoot in lower light at a slower shutter. It's extremely well made too.

The 24-70 L is a f/2.8 lens, but it a lot heavier than the 24-105, and a fair bit shorter. However if you also have a 70-200ish lens and don't mind swapping more often it's very sharp. It also doesn't have IS.

I'd have a look at the reviews here, they are superbly detailed: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

Best prices are listed here: http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk

Once you've used an L series lens, you'll never go back!

If you are thinking one day to move to full frame, stick to EF lenses, if you'll always stay on a cropped sensor, there are one or two good EF-S lenses, but you'll never get the build quality of the L series.

You're right. It's an ƒ/4.

For that reason, and the cost, it's being discounted from my wish list. I simply can't afford that much on glass right now, and likewise for the 70-200mm.

A couple of things...

I am pretty likely to stick with the APS-C sensor camera I've just bought for some while to come. I'd still like full-frame at some point, but it's not going to happen any time soon now I've invested in the 7D.

For lenses, I am generally aiming for large apertures when I can get them. I love the shallow DoF I get with the ƒ/2 and ƒ/1.8 primes I have. I'm leaning towards the Sigmas for the reasons of cost and compatibility, though it's often hard to work out whether a certain lens is an EF or EF-S equivalent. I'm hoping my choices are EF equivalent, but I know the 17-50mm is not.

Finances are the biggest hurdle to getting the top end glass. Unless I come into a huge inheritance, I am working to a limited budget, sadly.

Oh, and Camera Price Buster - bookmarked some time ago. It's my first port of call for any camera-related gear now!

If you aren't moving to full frame, have you considered the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS it's a great all-purposes zoom?

Detailed review here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... eview.aspx

Before I decided I'd switch to full frame, I was going to buy this for my 40D, it's a very good lens, not quite up to L series built quality, but on a cropped body will give 27-88mm which isn't far off the 24-105, and it's faster.

Don't discount slightly slower apertures, I've got some stunning DoF with the f/4, just placing a bit of distance between you, subject and background can give some very pleasing results. The colour from the 24-105 is fantastic, I always shoot in Neutral picture style, and I rarely tweak colours, expect for white balance.
But then it does depend on what you are shooting. I took some fantastic arty shots last year with the cheap "nifty-fifty" 50mm I borrowed from a friend!

Lens prices are crazy at the moment, far more than a few years ago, lenses have shot up. Thing to remember is they hold their value, so they are a long term investment, unlike a computer or camera body, they really don't lose vast amounts if you look after them. Still doesn't make spending all that money any easier!

Quite. I spend a long time comparing, reading and dithering before I flex the credit card.

That Canon lens ... is a lot of money. About £200 more than the Sigma version I was looking at. Then again, it is OEM, as it were.