I'd like advice on an upgrade... I am very interested in either the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 ex (but it is not OS) or the Sigma 17-70mm OS (But it is not ex, nor is it 2.8 through its zoom range) (it is also new with only a few mixed reviews) My question: How...
1211085
sigma recently came out with 17-70 version which has a C mark on it. its a good walk around woiyth f2.8 to 4. IS or OS is a good thing and its a personal decision. I have always preferred them as sometimes you forget to hold your breath for that magic moment which may not be as crisp otherwise.
528653
Does that lack of image stabilization in the 20 mm lens factor in against choosing it over the 14-45 lens? I think I'm all set to get the 20 mm lens after doing my research and reading these comments, but that was one area I was still questioning.
1787338
Any thoughts for general / home photography? I have a Digital Rebel XSI and recently bought the 70-200 mm F2.8 IS version mainly to photograph school events without the annoying flash, and take closeups of my rapidly-growing kids. I have been going back and forth between the two lenses (24-70 F2.8 vs. 24-105 F4.0 IS) but my instinct is that F2.8 is much better than F 4 even with IS. Any guidance appreciated from a professional.
328795
I too own a D40X and want to try this lens...have a Sigma 18-200mm lens but want to get another lens that offers sharp fotos of mountains...my currents lens cannot do that, but I do love its versatility.
108983
The newer version with the C is the contemporary line of lens, sigma also came out with a art line.Basically it's much better then all of sigma previous lenses and some of the art line can even beat Canon's L glass at a fraction of cost. Quality control is also better so less bad apples make it pass inspection.Just read the reviews, you can't go wrong with a lens from the contemporary or art line.
168736
Thanks to all of you for help with my question about this lens. From what I hear, the new Zeiss 16mm-35mm for the A7 is due out in the next few weeks. I'll wait for that one. And thank you all again...
1864063
I'm a hobbyist. I'd like to upgrade from the 28-135mm to the 24-105mm, but I'm afraid of spending this much and getting a lens that isn't a "good copy." I'm just not expert enough to know if a lens needs to be recalibrated or something. Is it best for someone like me to buy local and ask the camera store to evaluate the lens sharpness? Or buy from someone like B&H; and ask them to evaluate it before they ship it to me? I resell a lot of lenses, too, and I wouldn't want to resell it some day and have someone complain it wasn't sharp.
1463261
Did you ever get a lens? I'm making the same decision now. If so, what did you buy? Are you happy with your decision? Is there anything else you would add that would help me make a decision. Thanks!
1679834
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157602509321717/?search=sigma+vs.+nikon i know it's been a while but that may give some insight. i have the sigma version and it's great value for the price paid.
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
108982
The Contemporary version according to "http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-17-70mm-f2-8-4-os-hsm" is smaller, lighter, and uses revised optics compared to the old version which is why I choose this contemporary version. I use it on a Rebel T3i and I am very happy with the results.
916479
So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's... » Read More So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider « Show Less
410989
Thanks for the information. I was using a Canon 28-135 IS USM as my walk around travel lens and loved it until it got stolen in an airport! :-( Now I'm in the market for a new lens and I'm leaning towards the Tamron. I've used their lens in my past photography life with my old AE-1 Program and I'd LOVE the 18-270 if I can swing the $$$. I'm hunting eBay as well, as that's where I got my 28-135 and had NO problems with it at all!
368611
I tested both the Tamron and Sigma 70 to 200 f 2/8.`and this is my review. Every one is hot for fast AF, well the Sigma had fast AF, but the pictures it took sucked. The Tamron with its AF system took Great photos, but had slower AF. I don't know what you want, but I want great pictures. As far as sporting events go, set lens to inf., and shoot away, no problem. Thats the way it was done before all this AF. Hands down Tamron wins. I could have got the Nikon version of this lens, but even if you can afford it, what wrong with bang for the buck?
8522
Hardy,Thanks for the info about getting better lenses. I just "bit the bullet" and bought the 24-105mm L lens. I have heard this same wise advice from other photographers, and I am looking forward to getting sharper photos with the new lens, and I will try to get only L lenses from now on. In the end, you truly get what you pay for.
1329011
The newer version with the C is the contemporary line of lens, sigma also came out with a art line. Basically it's much better then all of sigma previous lenses and some of the art line can even beat Canon's L glass at a fraction of cost. Quality control is also better so less bad apples make it pass inspection. Just read the reviews, you can't go wrong with a lens from the contemporary or art line.
91302
I love this lens, but yes... I DO think you should save up for the IS version. I wish I would have. I was just a beginner not knowing what I was purchasing at the time. I am totally kicking myself now. :( Its not terrible, but I think the IS would be much better. In my honest opinion