| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/03/2008 09:04:20 AM · #1 |
Has anyone got a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon? How do they perform agianst the kit lens Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?
I am going to purcase a canon 40d and cannot decide which lens to go for. The canon lens is at a good price as it is sold with a kit. But the sigma, apart from it looking the business ie 82mm has a f2.8 apature which will come in usefull.
Please help. |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 09:08:57 AM · #2 |
the Sigma is better than the kit lens on the 300d, but not as good as the one with the 40d. It's faster, but not as sharp. If given the option i'd take the Canon since it's wider and longer, has IS and will keep its value (when you come to resell it) a lot more than the Sigma.
Message edited by author 2008-03-03 09:09:20. |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 09:20:41 AM · #3 |
| F2.8 is useful...depends on what you plan on using it for primarily I guess. |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 11:15:31 AM · #4 |
I would like to think I could use the sigma 24-70 for landscape and portraits.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2008 11:19:47 AM · #5 |
well yeah you can use it for both those things, but the canon kit is wider, so probs more use for landscapes, and longer so shouldn't distort the features of people so much as 70mm, which could result in big noses. Also, you might have to get a bit too close to the subject at 70mm to make them feel a little uncomfortable... it probably won't happen, but it can in some circumstances.
Also, for portraits, I very rarely ever go below f4.5 to ensure the face is on focus, otherwise you might get a sharp nose, but everything else might just be a tad blurry. Also, if you ever go into a studio, you'll never use f2.8... at least I haven't because it would just go blown out.
But if you have your heart set on the sigma, then get it, but with the kit lens as well I don't think you'll use it all that much.
Total value = $0.02 |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 11:45:02 AM · #6 |
I didn't notice that part, 40d with kit lens, thought it was optional.
If you're acquiring the kit lens anyway, why not play with for awhile and see if it fits your needs?
The advantage I see with the F2.8 is for indoor stuff where the lighting is poor and you don't want to (or can't) use flash. The 40d should handle higher ISO's without getting noisy, but every little bit helps sometimes. :-) |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 11:54:46 AM · #7 |
For landscape, you're normally shooting stopped down. Your kit lens will probably perform quite adequately when stopped down to f/8 or f/11, and it is wider by far than the 24-70. For portrait work, specifically for existing light candids, the f/2.8 aperture on the 24-70 is going to give you a big advantage. With regard to feature distortion, 70mm is *plenty* long to avoid it, especially on an APS-C camera. It's certainly long enough even on a 35mm frame.
If you are using your kit lens for landscape, and just want f/2.8 for portrait work, then perhaps the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 might also be one you should consider. It gets very positive reviews, and you avoid possible obsolescence issues with the Canon/Sigma combination (Sigma does not have a license for the Canon mount and therefore Sigma lenses often need to be re-chipped for mew Canon bodies. After some time, parts become unavailable and the lens is no longer useful for new cameras). |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 11:59:37 AM · #8 |
Use you kit for landscapes and grab the fantastic 50mm f1.8 for your portraiture work
|
|
|
|
03/03/2008 12:16:24 PM · #9 |
| Thanks for the advise. Am going to have a look at the reviews for Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 to see how it compares to the sigm and canon. |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 12:18:46 PM · #10 |
| There's a review here which might interest you - it's a pretty sharp lens by all accounts (considerably sharper and better built than the Canon 17-85mm by the looks of things - less distortion and CA's too) but as always it really depends on what you want to use it for. You'd want something a fair bit wider for landscapes on a cropped sensor, as has been stated above but it's quite a useful sort of range as a walkabout lens (as long as you don't want to go too wide!) |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 12:19:41 PM · #11 |
| Oh yes, and people here swear by the Tamron - great lens. Again, not very wide but a useful portrait lens. |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 04:38:59 PM · #12 |
I have both these lenses and i much prefer the sigma.
It will all come down to shooting in low light, will you want image stabaliser or f2.8.
I.S. will not be usefull for sports for example.
Originally posted by chig:
Has anyone got a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon? How do they perform agianst the kit lens Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?
I am going to purcase a canon 40d and cannot decide which lens to go for. The canon lens is at a good price as it is sold with a kit. But the sigma, apart from it looking the business ie 82mm has a f2.8 apature which will come in usefull.
Please help. |
|
|
|
|
03/03/2008 06:49:14 PM · #13 |
You should seriously look at the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 Macro DC. Ok not f2.8 through the whole range but this lens is sharp! Focus is also quick and I have found it a great walkabout lens. This lens is excellent value.
Mike |
|
|
|
03/03/2008 07:07:05 PM · #14 |
or the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is a superb performer! A brilliant lens, I don't know why i didn't think of it before. I have one and it pees from a great height on the Sigma.
|
|
