Searching for starter all-round lens for canon 200d (Rebel SL2)

[MartinEyefinity]

I'm planning on buying a canon 200D (I think its the Rebel SL2 in the US). I have never owned a camera, nor do I have much experience with photography. But on my trips abroad I have sometimes borrowed my friends (now relatively old) canon 600d which had the regular kit lens on it. What I noticed is that I regularly wanted more zoom on the lens while traveling. 

So, i was looking on what lens I would like with the Canon. An alternative ''kit'' lens is the more expensive "Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM"  which also functions with all the new features of the Canon 200d with CMOS sensor (Dual Pixel CMOS AF etc). But when watching reviews for this lens I repeatedly heard reviewers say to consider the "Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM" as it would be a better value for money (better build quality, better optics etc). 

 

Now before going for the Sigma lens, I tried googling for answers but didnt get lucky (all topics were in 2011 while the new version of this lens is from around fall 2013. 

I was wondering if there any downsides to the Sigma lens. For example, I heard that the focussing, image stabilization and the Dual Pixel autofocus etc works really well with the Canon 18-135mm lens.

So my questions are:

Do I sacrifice any of this, or something else, when going for the Sigma? 

Is the Sigma really better than the Canon?

Is there any other all-round travel lens you would recommend to buy for the Canon 200D (SL2), as an even better alternative to the Sigma Lens? My budget for a good lens is up to 500 dollars

 

Thanks in advance for the help!

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

On 1/9/2018 at 10:38 AM, MartinEyefinity said:

I'm planning on buying a canon 200D (I think its the Rebel SL2 in the US). I have never owned a camera, nor do I have much experience with photography. But on my trips abroad I have sometimes borrowed my friends (now relatively old) canon 600d which had the regular kit lens on it. What I noticed is that I regularly wanted more zoom on the lens while traveling. 

So, i was looking on what lens I would like with the Canon. An alternative ''kit'' lens is the more expensive "Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM"  which also functions with all the new features of the Canon 200d with CMOS sensor (Dual Pixel CMOS AF etc). But when watching reviews for this lens I repeatedly heard reviewers say to consider the "Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM" as it would be a better value for money (better build quality, better optics etc). 

 

Now before going for the Sigma lens, I tried googling for answers but didnt get lucky (all topics were in 2011 while the new version of this lens is from around fall 2013. 

I was wondering if there any downsides to the Sigma lens. For example, I heard that the focussing, image stabilization and the Dual Pixel autofocus etc works really well with the Canon 18-135mm lens.

So my questions are:

Do I sacrifice any of this, or something else, when going for the Sigma? 

Is the Sigma really better than the Canon?

Is there any other all-round travel lens you would recommend to buy for the Canon 200D (SL2), as an even better alternative to the Sigma Lens? My budget for a good lens is up to 500 dollars

 

Thanks in advance for the help!

 

Sigma has improved quality over the past few years, not that they were really bad.  They even had some older lenses that outperformed Canon and Nikon stuff.

[LAwLz]

Who compared the 18-135 canon, and the 17-70 Sigma?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Sigma has better optics, but the zoom is much more limited.

 

I haven't looked up any reviews but let's assume the Sigma has better image quality.

If that's the case then you are trading quite a bit of zooming for the cleaner image. So I guess the answer depends on how much zoom you want. If it's magnification you want, it might be best to get one good all-round lens (like ~ 18-70) and then one with a longer focal length (70-300).

[extraCrispy]

So are you only looking into zoom lenses here, or are prime lenses (fixed focal length, no zooming) an option?  Primes in the range of 15 mm to 35 mm (for an APSC sensor, the size in your camera currently) are great for travel and are usually fairly light and small within your price range.

[MartinEyefinity]

Yes you're right about the prime lenses!

I have done more research and decided to also buy the relatively new Canon 50mm 1.8 stm prime lense, along with the zoom lens. These two lenses together should be adequate for nearly all situations (traveling, small events,  portraits, objects etc). 

I'm still not sure about which zoom lens though, but I'll just spend a little more time research that. Probably going for the Canon 18-135 I mentioned earlier because the main reason was the extra zoom. 

 

[extraCrispy]

I've heard good things about that prime lens.  That will be great to learn on.  As far as the zooms you've posted, there isn't really much I can say about the individual lenses because I don't own either one of them (I shoot Sony, so....)  or have research into them.  But if you want that extra reach and don't really care about a faster aperture right now, then go for the Canon.  It'll be a good stepping stone up to a 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 combo.  Might not be as sharp as the sigma (more zoom, inherently less sharp, general rule of thumb for lenses like this), but if you're doing Facebook/Instagram type stuff, no one is going to be able to tell anyway!

[killertek78]

Props to the 'nifty fifty' or 'plastic fantastic'. I love mine(older non STM version), pretty much never comes off my trusty T5, unless I need some 'zoomage' then it swaps places with a 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM.