If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
You bring up a a valid point upgrading to the EF-S 17-85 w/IS, but it's
exactly the f/2.8 across the entire zoom range that attracts me to this particular Sigma lens. A fair amount of my shots are of house interiors taken before and after renovations so the ultra wide angle is definitely a plus. But I have to adjust levels of nearly every image to correct exposure, especially when interior designs are dark in nature. Since details are important in conveying quality of work, moving to faster ISOs increases noise, thus decreasing detail. "Steve Wolfe" wrote in message ... I own 3 Canon lenses, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 that came w/ Digital Rebel EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM that came w/EOS Elan II EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM. Since "quality" Canon glass is somewhat out of my price range this is the lens I'm considering as my walk around lens. I personally like the 18-55 as a walk-around: Not because of quality (it's obviously not stellar), but because going as wide as 18mm is often very helpful to me - even though it isn't terribly "fast". Unless you don't find that to be so, you might want to wait until you can scratch up enough for: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...A=details&Q=&s ku=351548&is=USA In fact, that lens would make the 18-55 useless, meaning you could sell it on ebay, making the cost difference between that and the Sigma not very great. steve |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Sigma lens to which I referred is a fairly new lens and really hasn't been reviewed or at least not that I can find.
http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...61&navigator=2 It's not the lens in the comparison at Photozone. http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...64&navigator=2 That Tamron model however is the one I'm debating as an alternate to the Sigma. http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/2875mm.asp "Ben Rosengart" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:17:43 GMT, Digi - Reb wrote: Since "quality" Canon glass is somewhat out of my price range this is = the lens I'm considering as my walk around lens. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ist&A=3Ddetai= ls&Q=3D&sku=3D350973&is=3DREG also considering... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ist&A=3Ddetai= ls&Q=3D&sku=3D284399&is=3DREG These links just take me to the B&H front page, I'm afraid. Probably because of the quoted-(un)printable encoding. It would be better if you posted your message as regular text rather than multipart MIME with text and HTML. Any thoughts or user testimonials, both pro and con would be = appreciated, as well as any other serious recommendations. Assuming we're talking about 20-something to 70-something f/2.8 zooms .... Photozone.de disparages the Sigma 24-70 and talks up the Tamron 28-75. Doesn't provide much detail though. Follow this link and look at "Alternatives", underneath the table: http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/canonFAQ.htm#28L They don't mention the Tokina 28-70, another competitor in this range. -- Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:33:50 GMT, Digi - Reb wrote:
The Sigma lens to which I referred is a fairly new lens and really = hasn't been reviewed or at least not that I can find. http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...3D3261&naviga= tor=3D2 It's not the lens in the comparison at Photozone. http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...3D3264&naviga= tor=3D2 Are you sure? Look again at Photozone. They mention both the "Sigma AF 28-70/2.8 EX DF" and the "Sigma AF 24-70/2.8 EX DF". Is this latter not the lens you're considering? Sigma's site doesn't list any other 24-70/2.8. -- Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Yes I'm certain, the actual lens is a Sigma AF 24 -70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO ~~~NOTE DG not DF
here's the link to it on Sigma's site under Standard Zoom Lenses it's the second in list w/NEW designation,.. http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...61&navigator=2 Note that this lens has an 82mm filter size. Since I have a 30 day window to return it, I think I'm going to take it for a test drive. I should know within a day or so if it's going to do the job. "Ben Rosengart" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:33:50 GMT, Digi - Reb wrote: The Sigma lens to which I referred is a fairly new lens and really = hasn't been reviewed or at least not that I can find. http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...3D3261&naviga= tor=3D2 It's not the lens in the comparison at Photozone. http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...3D3264&naviga= tor=3D2 Are you sure? Look again at Photozone. They mention both the "Sigma AF 28-70/2.8 EX DF" and the "Sigma AF 24-70/2.8 EX DF". Is this latter not the lens you're considering? Sigma's site doesn't list any other 24-70/2.8. -- Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:27:35 GMT, Digi - Reb wrote:
Yes I'm certain, the actual lens is a Sigma AF 24 -70mm f/2.8 EX DG = MACRO ~~~NOTE DG not DF Actually both: DF (Dual Focus) System This lens incorporates a Dual Focus (DF) system that is designed to make the lens easy to hold during autofocusing, and yet provides a large focus ring for easy manual focusing. Adorama lists just one Sigma 24-70/2.8, and mentions both DG and DF: Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF [...] here's the link to it on Sigma's site under Standard Zoom Lenses it's = the second in list w/NEW designation,.. http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...3D3261&naviga= tor=3D2 Hmm. So where in that list is the 24-70/2.8 that photozone.de talks about? Is it discontinued? -- Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Ben Rosengart" wrote in message ... Are you sure? Look again at Photozone. They mention both the "Sigma AF 28-70/2.8 EX DF" and the "Sigma AF 24-70/2.8 EX DF". Is this latter not the lens you're considering? Sigma's site doesn't list any other 24-70/2.8. -------------- Let me clear up some confusion about this lens having owned a number of recent Sigmas and Canon 'L' series lenses of similar specs, I can probably save you some heartbreak here as well. My first Sigma "EX" lens was a 28~70 f2.8. I used it on a 10D Camera and later on a Kodak with Canon mount. When I sold the 10D, I bought 2, 20Ds and a Sigma 24~70 (not the Macro) f2.8 "Digital" lenses. I also bought a 100~300 f4.0 Sigma lens thinking it would go a way towards equalling my 120~300 f2.8 Sigma when the distance I hiked made weight a major consideration. I was wrong and it cost me several grand to find that out. I print and sell 24"x 36" and 48" wide posters which sometimes become wallpaper photographs. Pictures from the 10D with the 28~70 lens easily enlarge to posters and the image is sharp and distortion free. Not so image from the 24~70. Even using a 20D with it's extra density, images taken using the 24~70 Sigma lens are not a lot better than those taken with the plastic element, 18~55 "kit lens" images. Use RAW and a nice converter like DxO which corrects the lenses problems and the kit lens starts to produce better quality images than the 24~70 Sigma. I put this down to the fact that Sigma "designed for digital" lenses are lesser quality than those they sell for 35mm. The 20D has some unique needs from a lens which Sigma's digital lenses don't seem to provide. Anyway, I recently sold the 24~70 Sigma (and the 100~300) and bought a "L" series 24~70 f2.8. This is THE lens by which to compare others and whilst I was happy with the 28~70 Sigmas and unhappy with the 24~70, neither of them came within a cat's whisker of the real thing. Sure, I can show you dozens of great pictures I took with the Sigma's but I also have hundreds more I can't sell for one reason or another which all relate to the lens having let the shot down. If your work needs to be done in low light, buy a program called "Neat Image" and a RAW converter called DxO with the 18~55 Canon module and leave the idea of a 24~70 alone until you can afford the real thing. The Sigma's don't cut it with digital, I'm afraid. You can't get much depth of field at f2.8 anyway so you'll probably need f5.6 to f8 just to have the interior in relatively sharp focus. The little plastic kit lens works best in this range and the barrel distortion from using it at 18mm is fixed with DxO. Don't be frightened to crank up the ISO. 20D's handle 1600 ISO better than Nikon handles 400 ISO and Neat Image will fix the noise really well. No one will ever know you are using a plastic lens unless you tell them and even then, probably won't believe you! Some of my enlargement: http://www.tecphoto.com.au/examples.htm and... http://www.tecphoto.com.au/examples2.htm Douglas |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro for Nikon | Cynicor | Digital Photography | 0 | February 14th 05 08:23 PM |
Tamron Macro Lens questions | Peter Werner | 35mm Photo Equipment | 11 | September 8th 04 09:34 PM |
Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED vs. Sigma 70-300mm. Supra II Macro | W Chan | Digital Photography | 5 | July 22nd 04 03:05 PM |
My Sigma camera and lens collection | Giorgio Preddio | Digital Photography | 65 | July 7th 04 10:03 PM |
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 1:1 EX Macro Lens for Minolta Maxxum on eBay | Fred A. Miller | Photographing Nature | 0 | March 9th 04 06:29 AM |