Why I chose the Sigma

Since June, I've been using a Canon 350 XT Digital Rebel, my first foray into the digital SLR world after using about six generations of consumer digitals. Years ago, I was heavily into 35mm B&W photography, including darkroom work. So I've been enjoying coming back to the SLR world.

I bought the 350 XT with the kit lens, and soon added two Canon primes, the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8.

As I looked to add another lens, I was considering Canon's 17-40L or the 70-200 f/4, both of which get such good reviews. I leaned towards the longer lens in order to extend the options available in my camera kit, but I kept wondering whether a longer lens would get enough use to justify the not insubstantial cost.

In the end, after endless "if...but...what if..." sessions with myself, I decided to follow a third path and buy the Sigma 18-125. Why? The price is right, about $300 delivered. Low enough to risk being wrong, but high enough to buy a semblence of reasonable quality. The range on the long end is enough to let me see in actual practice how much use I'll find for a moderate telephoto, and on the other end it's wide enough to substitute for the kit lens as an everyday choice.

I thought about the Sigma with slightly longer reach (18-200), but the extra $100 was a barrier I couldn't get over. It required more commitment, less of an experimental approach.

So I figured the 125mm would be long enough for now. If the long end gets enough use, I'll sell this lens and go for the Canon 70-200. If not, I'll upgrade from the kit to the "L" alternative. Such was my thinking. So off to B&H to order. In just a couple of days the box arrived at my office in Honolulu. Not a moment too soon.

Continue to Part 2: First impressions