T3i + Sigma 17-70?

[TridenT]

So, I don't have a real camera... I want to get a nice DSLR. I was thinking of getting the body only Canon T3i and the Sigma 17-70 What do you think?

Also, when are these things ever on sale? Holy crap. Maybe I should just get the T2i?

 

[Kanalua]

T2i/T3i and the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 is a great combination. You could get the T2i/17-50 Sigma combo for the same price as the T3i/17-70 combo, and you'd be getting better glass.

 

[elitejp]

Ive heard good things about the 17-70os and it would pair really well with the tokina 11-16 and a 70-200 of your liking.
As for the camera body i havent done much research on the t3i but I do know that most people who owned the t2i thought the pic quality was just as good as the more expensive prosumer 7d. But this is what I have come to notice about aps-c sensor size bodies and that is they all produce very similiar standards of pic quality (given that the bodies were produced in a siniliar time frame). And because of that I still havent upgraded from my 50d even though I bought it the first month it was out. So unless the t3i has something you really want or need Im going to venture that the quality of pic probably wont be noticably better than the t2i. Most dslr owners suggest glass over body, meaning spend more money on buying a better lens than buying a better body. However it does look like its only a 140 dollar difference between the 2 so in that case i would just get the t3i.

 

[speedy2]

T2i/T3i and the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 is a great combination. You could get the T2i/17-50 Sigma combo for the same price as the T3i/17-70 combo, and you'd be getting better glass.

This. I have owned both. 17-50mm f/2.8 hands down.

 

[BigSmooth]

First off, yes get the T2i. There's just no compelling reason to spend the extra money on the T3i, IMO. If you don't mind refurbs you can get a T2i cheap directly from Canon - a body can be had for less than $500.

The Sigma 17-70 is overlooked quite a bit, but by most accounts it's a good lens for the price. There aren't a ton of reviews out there but the ones I have seen are positive and owners on Flickr and POTN seem to like it a lot.

Testing indicates that it's fairly sharp for its class, and it's nice that it has IS. I like the added range over most normal zooms, and it's capable of f/2.8.
However, I have also read that it's a little soft at f/2.8, and of course you can only use that aperture at the extreme wide end. Personally, I would find that frustrating because you wouldn't really be able to zoom in low light situations.

Overall in that price range I'd rather get the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC. If you can step up to the Sigma I'd go that route. There are many other options as well but they are generally more expensive.

 

[TridenT]

17-50? What will I lose when I get that?

 

[AkumaX]

17-50? What will I lose when I get that?

I'd definitely get the 17-50mm f/2.8 over the 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0, because the 17-50mm is a constant f/2.8 over all zoom lengths.

As for which one (Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC or Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8), I guess its your preference (although I definitely do hear more towards the Tamron)

 

[Sp12]

Definitely T2i over T3i for the extra 400$ it costs compared to a refurb.

What are you shooting? You can probably get at least one more lens/a flash for the money saved.

Have you looked into the D3100 or A55? They're nicer than the T2i from an IQ/feature standpoint but more expensive and don't have as many options for using old lenses.

 

[TridenT]

Definitely T2i over T3i for the extra 400$ it costs compared to a refurb.

What are you shooting? You can probably get at least one more lens/a flash for the money saved.

Have you looked into the D3100 or A55? They're nicer than the T2i from an IQ/feature standpoint but more expensive and don't have as many options for using old lenses.

The money saved will probably be used to get scraps of food of off garbage men.

The 17-70 is also cheaper than the 17-50. ($450ish compared to $650) :/

I'm going to be shooting indoors mostly with variable lighting. (Really low to ok to bright) Mostly dancers, I imagine.

 

[nboy22]

I would check craigslist too if you're near or in a big city. I just pulled a brand spanking new t2i kit (18-55mm lens) with unfilled warranty paperwork for $625, then bought a class 10 8 gb card from fry's electronics for $20.

So $645 for a brand new and functioning t2i kit, killer deal.

 

[TridenT]

I would check craigslist too if you're near or in a big city. I just pulled a brand spanking new t2i kit (18-55mm lens) with unfilled warranty paperwork for $625, then bought a class 10 8 gb card from fry's electronics for $20.

So $645 for a brand new and functioning t2i kit, killer deal.

Shit like that ain't happenin' in this place. (Seattle) Buncha jerks who overprice EVERYTHING.

 

[nboy22]

Shit like that ain't happenin' in this place. (Seattle) Buncha jerks who overprice EVERYTHING.

just be patient, every once in a while you'll find good stuff. I'm in Phoenix, so it's also a big city. The guy had it listed as 650, I acted like I wanted to buy it, then told him I didn't know if I could do it that day. He lowered it to 625 on the spot and I took it.

 

[speedy2]

The money saved will probably be used to get scraps of food of off garbage men.

The 17-70 is also cheaper than the 17-50. ($450ish compared to $650) :/

I'm going to be shooting indoors mostly with variable lighting. (Really low to ok to bright) Mostly dancers, I imagine.

I'm seeing used 17-50mm Tamrons on POTN for around $300-$350

I've bought many used lenses from there. I would not hesitate to buy again. Check it out.

 

[Smoove910]

What you do is search the Craigslists all over. Simply type the following in your google search:

Canon T2i; craigslist

You'll see several deals:

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Canon+T2i%3B+craigslist

Here's a body for $590:
http://missoula.craigslist.org/pho/2257751195.html

Another body for $650:
http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/ele/2300276431.html


Did the same search for your lens:

Here's what Craigslist offers:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=canon+17-50mm+f/2.8;+craigslist


Here's a 17-50 for $350:
http://monterey.craigslist.org/pho/2231254744.html



You find a listing you are interested in and 9 times out of 10 they will ship to you if you ask (and pay for shipping). I've bought a ton of stuff using my search method for Craigslist, and have been quite successful.

You can search the same way for lenses. I just picked up a DA 55-300mm for my K7 a couple weeks ago. They lived in Southern California, I live in Western Idaho...

 

[AkumaX]

A member on this forum sold a lightly used T2i kit for $525. what a steal!!

 

[twistedlogic]

17-50? What will I lose when I get that?

20mm,

What you gain with the 17-50mm is f2.8 throughout the entire range.

The Sigma you have listed starts at f2.8 (17mm), then as you zoom towards the longer end gradually goes to f4.

17mm - f2.8
24mm - f3.2
28mm-49mm - f3.5
50mm-70mm - f4

Also along with POTN you could check out FM's (fredmiranda) FS section. I've had no issue there and have heard nothing but great things about them.

 

[Sp12]

The money saved will probably be used to get scraps of food of off garbage men.

The 17-70 is also cheaper than the 17-50. ($450ish compared to $650) :/

I'm going to be shooting indoors mostly with variable lighting. (Really low to ok to bright) Mostly dancers, I imagine.

Shooting dancers indoors in low light is tough. Anything with an aperture of 2.8 is going to be really tough. Consider getting a longish, fast (1.4, 1.2, 1.8, 2.0) prime instead.

Canon T2i off of Canon Loyalty Program? 448$.
Sigma 17-50 OS? 670$.

Additional things that would be nice for indoor, low light shooting?

Yongnuo 468? 98$ off of Ebay
Canon 85/1.8? Typically ~350$ on ebay.

 

[TridenT]

Shooting dancers indoors in low light is tough. Anything with an aperture of 2.8 is going to be really tough. Consider getting a longish, fast (1.4, 1.2, 1.8, 2.0) prime instead.

Canon T2i off of Canon Loyalty Program? 448$.
Sigma 17-50 OS? 670$.

Additional things that would be nice for indoor, low light shooting?

Yongnuo 468? 98$ off of Ebay
Canon 85/1.8? Typically ~350$ on ebay.

D: I'm never going to have the money... Sigh. I could pay my rent for 4 months with how much that all will end up costing.

 

[nboy22]

D: I'm never going to have the money... Sigh. I could pay my rent for 4 months with how much that all will end up costing.

Welcome to photography. Glass is not cheap.

I have a few lenses in my queue, but it will take quite a bit of time to build up the extra cash for it.

for instance:
Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime - $400
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 - $650
Canon 70-200mm or 70-300mm (Can't make my mind up on that one) - $600-$2,600 depending on the model.

At least you aren't buying a RED One video camera, those prime lenses can run you $10,000 a piece.

 

[Gillbot]

FS/Ft can net you a good deal on a T1/2i readily. Don't rule out Adorama sales too.

 

[speedy2]

Glass is not cheap.

This is all that needs to be said. If you want to get cheap glass, go ahead. But you WILL regret it.

 

[TridenT]

FS/Ft can net you a good deal on a T1/2i readily. Don't rule out Adorama sales too.

Mkay. I looked in FS/FT and there was like one or two postings in the last month for a T2i.

I don't think I want a T1i because the T2i is supposed to be significantly better.

 

[Sp12]

D: I'm never going to have the money... Sigh. I could pay my rent for 4 months with how much that all will end up costing.

You could potentially drop the 17-50 zoom for a faster prime depending on the venue you shoot at. Check out the light levels, if they're not that bad ISO 3200/6400 and F/2.8 can get you reasonable shutter speeds.

I realize this may be somewhat silly given the tiny viewfinder on a rebel, but there are a lot of inexpensive manual-focus primes with excellent optical quality to be had.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The money saved will probably be used to get scraps of food of off garbage men.

The 17-70 is also cheaper than the 17-50. ($450ish compared to $650) :/

I'm going to be shooting indoors mostly with variable lighting. (Really low to ok to bright) Mostly dancers, I imagine.

The 17-50 Tammy runs for $400ish new. You might be looking at the VC (Tammy's version of IS) version which isn't really worth it.

Trust me, this 17-50 lens is solid. The Sigma 17-70 isn't as sharp.

Honestly, just stick with the kit lens IMO and get a flash. That's been 10x as useful for me than having f/2.8 capabilities.

There honestly aren't that many applications for f/2.8. You can still get nice bokeh shooting f/4 which I shot for my last vacation. And if you do group shots, f/2.8 risks blurring other people.

If you want a fast lens, just grab the 50mm/1.8 and learn from there. I personally have a f/2.8 lineup (11-16 and 17-55), and hope to expand that to telephoto someday....

Stick to a T2i or better. I have a T1i, and while it's great, the 7D sensor which they use in the T2i is amazing. I shoot both a 7D and T1i. I won't say it's world's better, but it's definitely a step up, and a T2i shouldn't be that much more than a T1i. All I say is avoid the XSi if you can. While that sensor is great, the 230k pixel display is crap compared to a 920k display. So T1i and up at least....

BTW, regarding the kit lens, it's just as sharp as top notch lenses like the Tammy 17-50, or the $1100 Canon 17-55 f/2.8 lens. The Sigma doesn't even come close at all. The Canon kit lens is top notch and if you don't desperately need low light capabilities, I suggest you learn from there. I could've shot my friend's wedding with my kit lens if I wanted. Most of my 17-55 shooting was done with flash, and when I didn't use flash, it was with the 70-200.

 

[Gillbot]

Mkay. I looked in FS/FT and there was like one or two postings in the last month for a T2i.

I don't think I want a T1i because the T2i is supposed to be significantly better.

I'm perfectly happy with my T1i and love the extra cash in my wallet after picking it up over the T2i. All that extra cash landed me some NICE lenses which will get you better pictures over the "better" body IMHO.

Something to ponder: Most people carry lenses from body to body as they upgrade, not vice versa.