[stepheno]

I started off on my DSLR travels with a Tamron 18-200. It has been a cracking walkabout lens but it's gone - sold - and in it's place I have just bought a Canon 24-105 F4 L IS USM. You might say why not keep the Tamron and buy the Canon, well I'm not made of money and I like to think I will use my lenses and not have them "just in case".

So I thought to myself a re-shuffle is in order. I have the 100-400 which is essential for me for soccer, the ubiquitous 50mm f1.8 (at the price a no-brainer to have in any kit) and finally the 100mm f2.8 macro. So what would fill the gap if I sold the Tamron and I decided on the 24-105, my views being I now have a good range of 24 to 400 covered by two lenses, a specialist macro lens an excellent portrait lens and I'm now set Or am I - do I see a need for a 10-24 (or the like) creeping up on me?

Why can't I just be content with what I've got. Anyway I'll be posting a review in the Equipment Reviews section just as soon as I've had a play.

[Sonsey]

Originally Posted by stepheno

my views being I now have a good range of 24 to 400 covered by two lenses, a specialist macro lens an excellent portrait lens and I'm now set Or am I - do I see a need for a 10-24 (or the like) creeping up on me?

You've basicly gone exactly the same way I intend to go regarding lenses so congrat's on the new lens, I'm very interested to see how you get on with it.

Regarding your question, I think you might find that 24mm on a 1.6x crop sensor camera may just not be wide enough, but you'll only really know after living the 24mm for a bit.... I do see another lens purchase in your future though

[VikingPhotography]

If you need to go wider than 24 (38.5mm effective compared to 135 format) then I'd suggest either

Sigma 10-20mm f/4 - 5.6 EX DC HSM ~ £300 - if you're shooting landscapes
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5 - 4.5 USM ~ £500 - if you're shooting mixed subjects
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM ~ £1000 - if you're shooting people

From all reports the Sigma is an excellent performer and clearly offers great value for money.

When you're down at the extremely wide end of things, the 2mm extra reach of the Canon 10-22mm can make a lot of difference. In 135 format terms, you're looking at the equivalent of 16-32mm for the Sigma and 16-35.2mm for the Canon... and those extra 3.2mm relates to a significant change in the lens' field of view.

Lastly, the Canon 16-35mm represents a good long-term investment... particularly if you're considering moving up to a FF dSLR anytime in the next few years. Whether you can justify such an investment is up to you

[stepheno]

That's all I need VP - more reasons to spend more money But now that you mention it I'm dubious about going down the EF-S route, £1000 for the 16-35 is NOT an option but your mention of the Sigma ......no.... I do not need it, I can not afford it.....but, I might just have a look. It's just as well that all lenses look the same to my wife

[Sonsey]

Originally Posted by stepheno

That's all I need VP - more reasons to spend more money But now that you mention it I'm dubious about going down the EF-S route, £1000 for the 16-35 is NOT an option but your mention of the Sigma ......no.... I do not need it, I can not afford it.....but, I might just have a look. It's just as well that all lenses look the same to my wife

The Sigma 10-20mm will only work on crop sensors aswell as far as I'm aware, if that's what your worried about then I believe the Sigma 12-24mm works on crop and full frame sensors, it cost's a bit more though.

[stepheno]

Thanks Sonsey....I think you and VP are ganging up on me

[abirkill]

From what I've heard the 12-24mm isn't particularly good though - great if you want 12mm on a FF camera, but if that's not a requirement you'll get a much better image from the 10-20mm Sigma. And you can always sell it when you upgrade to FF - there's more than enough 1.6FOVCF cameras in the field to ensure the depreciation stays low for some time to come.