Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by spizarxxx, Aug 26, 2007.
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG
372.05 with a tiffen uv filter, yay or nay
Decent lens but I'd rather spend my money on the Tamron 17 50 2.8
hmmm after looking at the reviews that one looks good too
my buddy uses that sigma...he gets pretty good results with it. Another guy that i hang with uses thea 17-70 and he loves it
should have gone with the tamron 28-75 2.8
I havent gone with anything yet!
you talking about this one?
FYI: Tiffen UV filters suck balls.
I owned that lens for about 2 days before I sent it back to B&H to get the Tamron 28-75. The 17-50 is even better.
The sigma was horridly soft at 2.8, and didn't sharpen up till about 5.6. Also, I hate the manual focus mechanism and the extremely loud focusing.
wich one would you suggest?
hey thanks for the input! I will keep that in mind, those are the 2 that I have it narrowed down to then, I would like to get just a lil extra zoom so I might go with the 28-75
Not using one is the best choice. Modern lenses have all the UV coating they need and the front elements are hard enough that the UV isn't needed for protection.
But if you MUST use one use a Hoya or B+W.
i hope you have something like a 10-22, 28-75 will leave you wanting in the WA
I am just mainly looking for something that will keep the lens protected
all i have right now is the ket lens so I am just starting out on getting them. maybe the 17-50 would be a better idea then
The Tamron 28 75 I had was fairly soft at 2.8-4.0. I sold mine since it wasn't wide enough, though.
That would be my choice, it would be ideal for a walk around lens.
But it depends what you are shooting of course.
sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4
1. Re-read my post. The filter is really not providing any additional protection, modern lenses are not the delicate little things you might think they are.
2. Tiffens WILL actually negatively impact the image quality, and it will be enough to be visible. Contrast, and color saturation are both reduced because the Tiffens are HORRIBLY prone to lens flare/glare because the coatings SUCK. Is the trade off worth it? See #1.
landscapes/cityscapes, buildings and shit... and whatever my mind may spark as interesting
ok 17-50mm f/2.8 is 399.00 should I scoop it up?
do you want it?
I do I am just a lil leary of buying somehting that I have never even used before... I trust most of you on here, so thats why I am asking
Go to a photo store that has one and take your camera. Tell them you want to try it out on your camera. Take a few pictures, go home, look at the pictures, and decide if that's what you want.
the camera stores here only stock canon lenses for my camera and they only special order sigma lenses not tamron thought about that already! was that the store today