I just bought this article I have to buy another accesoir for use with my 35mm 1.4 sigma art canon f4 40 or 17?
1016221
BonGiorno,You need to provide info on what you have already. Do you have rails? RedRock sells gears for your lenses. Determine the circumference and buy accordingly.I needed the A and B gears from RedRock, purchased through B and H in New York.
1016222
BonGiorno, You need to provide info on what you have already. Do you have rails? RedRock sells gears for your lenses. Determine the circumference and buy accordingly. I needed the A and B gears from RedRock, purchased through B and H in New York.
1016223
If you're asking should you buy this product them the answer is yes. I have it and love it.
751818
i hear alot of good things about the sigma 17-35 1.8 all though it would depend on what sort of photography you do!i like to keep in the family,so thats why i went with canon 85 1.8 witch is a vary good lens,also its a prime lens and would work well on your t4i and most other canon cameras.
157293
You'd have to get a 58mm-77mm step up ring because both of your lenses are 58mm. I'm not sure how well it would work that way. You could get the Canon 500D 58mm instead and it would fit fine.
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
2240580
The 17-85 is a nice lens unless you got a poor copy - it has more reach & was designed for the crop cameras. The 17-40 is a superlative lens with astounding deep, rich color and photo quality. If you want longer, you won't be happy but if you can work with this range it is great!
2240579
Okay...I'll give you the details but I'm just a novice that likes to take pictures. The colors with the 17-40 are rich and beautiful....the lens is sharp and the photos have a "pop" to them, but when the light gets low the 17-40 has a hard time. Outside with good lighting the 17-40 is hard to beat. I use the 17-55 inside or when the lighting is low. It's sharp and fast. If I had to choose only one it would be the 17-55 because it is a faster lens...f2.8.
923246
I too have the 45-175. Keep an eye out prices vary all the time. If you see a 'great deal' (especially used) GRAB IT. That is true for all items on Amazon. Now, you have three lenses and you must have a kit lens with your G5? If you have a bare G5 then none of these is my best advice, you will not like how 45mm (effectively 90mm) is not nearly 'wide' enough for close up shots... So, assuming you have a 14-42 and this is your SECOND lens you have price and age to decide. lowest cost (and low weight) is the newest 45-150 (2012). Best overall range, in my biased opinion, is the 45-175 (2011) Significantly older and middle of the three pricewise (and much heavier and larger) is the 45-200 (2008). Really, like someone else said, just keep checking (sometimes the price will change significantly during a day), I got my 45-175 for 192 and change last June. Best of luck!
552637
I have the canon 17-85mm lens and it works great. You could also get the 40mm pancake or if you have a bit more of a buget, get the 24-105 mm canon lens, it is a sweet lens with a sharp image.
354393
I bought it to replace the 14-42 that was damaged. 17mm is included in the range of the original lens. It also is f2.8 over the f3.5.GeneK
1882833
Just make sure you get the 1 w/ the Nikon mount. It will say if you want a Nikon or Canon? It's a cool lens!
100136
Both works fine. But I think a 24mm focal length is too angular for these uses. I would go for the 40 mm.
192722
I have a Canon T2i and two Tamron lenses. The 17-50 is my primary lens for landscapes, cityscapes and indoor general purpose use. Yes the lens works great! Huge improvement over the Canon kit lens! Here are some images I took: http://www.flickr.com/photos/baitmouth/ The most recent were taken with the 17-50.
462700
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The difference could pay for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - A quick lens is very versatile.
650645
I have both lenses... the Canon 400 prime is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. I would however never use it with a converter... you will increase the f stop to much, at least for me. I would not replace the 400 prime with the Tamron. If I was buying new I would say its a toss up. The Tamron is soft wide open. The 400 cropped gives better results at least for me. I would however take the Tamron over the older Canon 100-400 zoom.
1211517
You can attach the TCON17 this way and it will work but it creates a lot of stress on the FZ40 lens when you extend it. It's OK if you're going to use it sparingly and support it with your free hand but if you're going to use this combination frequently I would recommend buying an adapter tube. If you search "FZ40 adapter tube" here on Amazon you will see a Polaroid tube equivalent to DMW-LA5. This attaches to the body of the camera so there is no stress. To attach the TCON17 directly to the camera you need a 52-55mm step UP ring. If you use the adapter tube you will need a 58-55m step DOWN ring to attach to the end of the tube. Hope this helps.
632568
While it is a two lens solution, you might be better with the new Canon 18-55 and 55-250 lenses that are both Image stabilized and reportedly darn good lenses and not have to worry about where the Sigma you get has any of the quality issues they are known for.
501124
I'm in the same boat. I have a 40d as well and I just bought the Canon 50mm 1.8 but found that I was always "stepping back" to take a lot of indoor shots. I am leaning towards either the Sigma 30 1.4 or Canon 24 f2.8. The 24 got a good review at the photozone.de site. Here's a direct link if Amazon will let it through: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/153-canon-ef-24mm-f28-test-report--review?start=2.They review just about every lens. Check it out. Again, it's photozone (dot) de