Which sigma?

HybridUK

HybridUK

Suspended / Banned
Messages
447
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

First of all, Merry Christmas to you all. Hope you've all had a great day.

I've been lucky enough to receive some money to put towards a lens for my 400D. However, i'm stuck on what to grab.

Choices:

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro ---- £199.00
or
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO ---- £252.00

Which would you go for? It will be to replace my kit lens and to be used as my new walkabout lens.

As for what i'd be photographing it would be a mixed bag of subjects from the odd landscape to candid style shots.

Any help would be great.

Enjoy the rest of your day. :)
 
24-70mm 2.8 if it were me :) its a huge and lovely bit of glass :)
 
I got the 24-70 (and it is nice) but I also have a 10-20 sigma so I don't miss the wide end so much.
you might find 24mm a bit long for landscapes. Have you considered the 18-50 2.8 sigma?
I think all these lenses have quite a good following on this forum so you won't go far wrong either way.:thumbs:
 
On the 400d remember that you have a multipler of 1.6 so personally i'd watch going to large.

The sigma 10-20 is as sharp as Canon L glass, great for landscapes but to small for a walkabout i think. The 17-70 isnt a bad lens plus you could always look at the Canon 18-55 IS which isnt getting bad reviews....price £70 unboxed Park Cameras UK
 
Another vote for the 24-70 F2.8
I used mine yesterday for those opening xmas present shots of the kids.

Makes a brilliant indoor lens plus a decent walkabout to, though I tend to use my 17-40L when on walks.
 
Excellent, think you have all made up my mind now. :)

Does Kerso stock Sigma's or does anyone else know of a decent trusted seller where i could pick these up cheaply?
 
Kerso can do sigma's, at least he quoted prices for me on Sigmas

I'd possibly go against the above and say that 24 is not ideal for landscapes, I "upgraded" the 18-55 kit lens to a 28-105 f3.5-4.5. Picture quality is better, yes, and the extra length is great, but I do miss those extra degrees on the wide end. Save your pennies and gor for something better like the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM (although you might be saving for some time!)
 
I cant see how you have made your mind up on the advice given
 
Probably because he wasn't *actually* looking for advice as to which lens to buy, more looking for a confirmation that the decision he'd taken wasn't stupid ;)
 
lol, that would be correct.

I've been into Jessops today to have a play about with one and bloody hell it's one HEAVY piece of kit.

I'd obviously like more input from other users of this lens to hear what they think of it.
 
Probably because he wasn't *actually* looking for advice as to which lens to buy, more looking for a confirmation that the decision he'd taken wasn't stupid
Click to expand...

Well theres no point me replying now as I dont have the lens. Also the lens has been 'played' with and its "one HEAVY piece of kit".

I ask myself....would I be asking for more input about it?....lol.
 
IMO the lens is great, its really shapr and the bokeh is very nice too - the fact that it's 2.8 constantly means it's going to be quite useful but I guess the price you pay is it's huge. The transition from in focus out of focus is really nice, and the only downside (except it's size) in my opinion is that it does what most sigma lenses do and that's add a certain warmth that you might not necessarily want.

Great lens imo :)
 
I don't think you'll be disapointed if you go for the 24-70;) The only time mine is ever off the camera is when it gets replaced with it's big brother the 70-200.
 
18-70 af-s is f3.5-4.5, not constant aperture, its slow as soon as you leave 18mm, not a fair comparison.
I mean, its fine if speed isn't an issue, but generally If I'm gonna buy a zoom lens, I want the same usefullness throughout its length.
Thats what these numbers are all about, nobody is gonna choose a comparable vari app above a constant app, unless they are on a budget.
Infact, a budget generally decides what brand is chosen also, I think a lot of peeps would probably stick with their body manufacturers glass if they weren't so expensive.
 
I was wondering the same sort of thing when I first got a 350D. I bought the sigma 28-70 F2.8 after looking at tons of reviews and didn't regret the purchase.

The faster aperture is great for shots in lower light and the lens itself was well built, quite a difference from the kit lens.
 
joxby said:
18-70 af-s is f3.5-4.5, not constant aperture, its slow as soon as you leave 18mm, not a fair comparison.
I mean, its fine if speed isn't an issue, but generally If I'm gonna buy a zoom lens, I want the same usefullness throughout its length.
Thats what these numbers are all about, nobody is gonna choose a comparable vari app above a constant app, unless they are on a budget.
Infact, a budget generally decides what brand is chosen also, I think a lot of peeps would probably stick with their body manufacturers glass if they weren't so expensive.
Click to expand...



Sorry my lack of knowledge is going to pretty obvious here. If it is a constant F number, how does one cater for the depth of field? Will it always gave the same depth of field?

If not a problem, is it therefore a geberal rule that a lens with a low f number, fixed, is better than a lens with a higher f number, non fixed?

ie, f1.2 fixed verses f2.8 to f5.0 ?

Sorry for being such a clueless noob!

Gary.
PS - my camera seems to let me set up to f32 for some of my lenses, even though the lens has no mention of this figure. I am sure my sigma 10 - 20 let me grab a f32 shot?
 
Constant aperture (f2.8) works throughout the whole zoom range of the lens.

A f3.5-4.5 will start at f3.5 at the short end of the zoom and gradually get to f4.5 at the long end
 
hypnotic said:
Constant aperture (f2.8) works throughout the whole zoom range of the lens.

A f3.5-4.5 will start at f3.5 at the short end of the zoom and gradually get to f4.5 at the long end
Click to expand...


Ahh ok, so the benefit is that you CAN get the best aperture the lens is capable of regardless of the zoom etc?. Therefore, the lens allows maximum light to hit the sensor regardless of the position of the zoom...I think.

Where as my lens will allow f3.5 when not zoomed, but will grdually increase the f number when zooming, so it's requires more light than a fixed lens, making it more difficult to capture for example a hand held shot of a cat sleeping by a dim lamp, (camera shake will be more aparent due to the longer f number?)
 
EdinburghGary said:
Ahh ok, so the benefit is that you CAN get the best aperture the lens is capable of regardless of the zoom etc?. Therefore, the lens allows maximum light to hit the sensor regardless of the position of the zoom...I think.
Click to expand...


Correct ... :thumbs:


EdinburghGary said:
Why are the higher numbers not advertised on a lens?
Click to expand...



Good question .... And one which I do not know the answer to i'm afraid ... :D

Hopefully someone will come along and tell us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top