sigma af 24-70 f/2.8 ex dg macro lens what the difference between the two sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ex dg macro lens
160523
I wasn't aware Sigma made this same lens in a "macro" version? Becarefull believing the discriptions as some "used" products are misrepresented. Any how, macro will allow for a shorter minimum focus distance. Good luck
160524
The af designates an auto focus lens, which has a motor that receives a signal from the camera and will focus automatically.
1915106
Correct; you unscrew the smaller lens to access the macro lens. These lenses are garbage, but to get the desired effect you have to be right on top of the subject you want the picture of.
933401
Many lenses are described as having "macro" capabilities, but this only refers to their close-focus distance and magnification. A true macro has 1:1 magnification; the 35-70 was 1:5.6, and the 24-70 is a little better at 1:3.7, but neither are true macros.
1181727
No.. the macro part is a positive diopter lense while the fisheye section is a negative diopter. Together it is like looking through a telescope backwards. The macro section can be used alone for close shots but there's a lot of distortion (not always bad) and can be fun artistically.
1293198
The primary difference between the Canon EF 100 mm f /2.8L IS USM Macro Lens and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens is the IS. This refers to Image Stabilization. The IS in that lens is good to 4-stops (really probably 2 or 3) meaning it can compensate for the shake in the image from a longer exposure. This is a benefit for macro photography as it allows for a longer exposure with a smaller aperture, allowing for a greater depth of field in your image. You can search for macro photos on Google images and you will notice the small depth of field in most of the photos, which frames the subject well when used correctly, but when it is too small, only a small part of the subject will actually be in focus. Secondarily, the Canon EF 100 mm f /2.8L IS is a "L" or "Luxury" lens. Although partially a marketing gimmick by Canon, this means that the lens will be higher quality, have at least partial weather sealing, have a better outside lens coating, and generally be of higher build quality. As an owner of the less expensive of the two, and having used both, I would recommend buying the cheaper one if you just want to get started in macro photography, and maybe spend some money on extension tubes or a macro flash. If you are still curious about both these lens, I always recommend renting the lens in question before a purchase or going out and finding them in a photography store. I personally use lensrentals.com for my rentals, but there are several excellent renters on the web.
1566272
The Sigma 17-70 OS lens is designed to be used on DX format cameras. It will only function on FX format when that camera is in DX crop mode. As an owner of both the D7000 and D700, I can say that this lens vignettes very badly on FX. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 lens, on the other hand, will work on the D700 at 15-16mm with little or no vignetting, and it's sharp as a tack. There are a few others that work this way - I believe the 12-24 f4 Tokina and a couple of Nikon wide angle DX lenses will also do this. Unfortunately, the Sigma 17-70 is not one that will work the way you want it to on a FX format camera. The Sigma 17-70 OS lens is designed to be used on DX format cameras. It will only function on FX format when that camera is in DX crop mode. As an owner of both the D7000 and D700, I can say that this lens vignettes very badly on FX. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 lens, on the other hand, will work on the D700 at 15-16mm with little or no vignetting, and it's sharp as a tack. There are a few others that work this way - I believe the 12-24 f4 Tokina and a couple of Nikon wide angle DX lenses will also do this. Unfortunately, the Sigma 17-70 is not one that will work the way you want it to on a FX... » Read More The Sigma 17-70 OS lens is designed to be used on DX format cameras. It will only function on FX format when that camera is in DX crop mode. As an owner of both the D7000 and D700, I can say that this lens vignettes very badly on FX. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 lens, on the other hand, will work on the D700 at 15-16mm with little or no vignetting, and it's sharp as a tack. There are a few others that work this way - I believe the 12-24 f4 Tokina and a couple of Nikon wide angle DX lenses will also do this. Unfortunately, the Sigma 17-70 is not one that will work the way you want it to on a FX format camera. « Show Less
357722
I own both...in terms of image quality, there's no comparison - the 24-70 is in another league. It's a full stop faster (brighter viewfinder, better depth of field control, faster focusing, etc) and it gives you that "pop" you get from the best professional grade lenses. On the down-side, the 24-70 is a much narrower zoom range, so you might find yourself needing to carry two lenses whereas just the 24-120 would cover you otherwise. It's a personal thing I guess, but if I could only have one or the other, I'd take the 24-70 without a moment's thought.
848894
The 24-70 is generally $300-400 more than the 17-55. There is no IS in the 24-70, and it weighs 2.1 lbs almost a pound more than the 17-55. Construction build is way better w/ the 24-70 and has a wee bit longer zoom. Those are probably the only advantages it has over the 17-55. IQ look almost identical from both lenses. I would go with 17-55 mainly for the IS and lower price.
1716986
All the reviews that compare this lens with the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I, state there is very little differance betwen the two lenses. I own the Canon 28-70 F/2.8. It is a very sharp lens. I can't see paying the more expensive price for the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I if they perform the same. However, the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II appears to be the better of the three lens. It is more expensive of course. In my opinion, the price differance between the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II doesnt match the small improvement in image quality, unless you are shooting professionally and need the best quality possible. You can't go wrong with the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 for the price, just keep in mind it is an older lens and if it needs repaired, Canon probably won't repair it.
1927314
I use two lenses for most of my work although I do have a number of other lenses for special tasks such as macro. for most of my landscapes I use a Sigma 18-250 macro lens. It's very versatile and give me photos with little chromatic aberrations. It's fairly fast at F3.5 and the nice thing is I can keep it on the camera 75% of the time. The other lens I use a lot it the Sigma 150-500 Auto focus. It's great for shooting wild life shot such as song birds near a bird feeder or a bear you don't want to get too close to. I have other lenses I use also but nearly as often as I use these two. Don
933395
the biggest advantage is obviously the ability to go wide during weddings etc without missing shots or having to switch lenses. The 24mm is crisp throughout vs the softer edges in the older lens. I've also heard of some quality issues on the older lenses as well. The 35-70 won't auto focus with all cameras, depending on what you carry. Hope this helps.
1947495
The biggest difference is that this lens is weather sealed, while the Sigma 70-300mm is not. Its range also meshes well with the stock 18-55mm kit lens. Regarding IQ, the only head to head test I found seemed to indicate IQ was similar except at the far end (270-300mm) where the Pentax had slightly better IQ. But the two lenses are close enough that if I hadn't valued the weather sealing I probably would have gotten the Sigma at half the price -- the reality is that neither is a professional grade lens and neither will give you professional-grade IQ at 300mm.
2204555
The f/# changes as you zoom the lens. At 24mm it is f/2.8, at 85mm it is f/4.0.
1640068
From what I can tell, the cheaper version is smaller and lighter. But, I don't know if that necessarily makes it a better lens. Here is the link to sigmas page for the more expensive lens: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-ii-dc-os-hsm And here is the link to the less expensive one: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-dc-macro-os-hsm-c I have the more expensive lens, and I have used it exclusively since I bought it. I've never shot with the other one though, so I can't accurately compare one to the other.
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.
608749
I've owned both. For the obvious, the 17-70 has a more useful FL, while the 17-50 has the constant f/2.8 throughout its range. Physically, the 17-70 takes 72mm filter vs 77mm filters, the weight is lighter by 20% (470g vs 565g) and its a smaller lens which may balance on your APS-C camera better (79mm x 82mm vs 84mm x 92mm). The 17-70 will give you also a psuedo-macro capability at a 1:2.9, which is rather useful. Personally, another point to note (and I've substantiated this myself after coming across it in a few Google blurbs) is that 17mm on the 17-50 is REALLY not 17mm, but 18mm when looked at closely. May not be a deal breaker, but to some it is and the lens really is, in practice, an 18-50 lens. I found the color rendition of the two lenses to be similar (lovely, in fact) and I find the 17-70 to be sharper across the frame at 50mm than the 17-50 is, which is not surprising as that's the farthest reach of the 17-50's FL and it's expected to suffer a tad there. If you haven personally used the new Sigma Contemporary and Art series lenses, I suggest you give them a try. Excellent materials, tight tolerances, well made. I ended up keeping the 17-70f/2.8-4 C and selling the 17-50 f/2.8. I have f/1.8primes to cover the need for low light shooting should it arise, and the extra FL is more important to me
992357
Although I have both Tamron and Sigma lenses, I prefer using Sigma. Better clarity, better constructed.