A&P Bought a new sigma 24-70 f2.8 lens *PICS*

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by killer4605, Apr 11, 2006.

  1. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Took this lens for a spin over the weekend. Not happy with how big and heavy it is so I ordered a 17-85 IS. Other than that, the lens is superb. Here are the pics without any PP. There are 100% crops included after each pic (except the 3rd duck pic, that one is a 100% crop off another pic).

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    we have 24-70's at work and they're horrible. I don't recommend sigma lenses in this zoom range just because of their shear size and weight.
     
  3. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you recommend for a walkaround lens on a rebel XT (1.6x crop). I already have a 50mm f1.8 and just ordered the canon 17-85 IS
     
  4. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    get a 28mm or a 35mm. I really like using a normal as a walkaround
     
  5. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah I wouldn't mind a sigma 30mm 1.4 w/ hsm but that is pretty expensive for just a prime lens... but then again, it is very fast and has hsm :).

    I'll see... maybe if i can get a good deal and sell off the 50mm i'll buy one :big grin:
     
  6. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    The whites seemed washed out.

    I'm not a huge fan of the 17-85. It's not bad, but there are better things available, ie Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
     
  7. Pineapple Devil

    Pineapple Devil beat it!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    53,752
    Likes Received:
    8
    i'm either going to get the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 or go ahead and take the plunge to the 24-70 f/2.8L
     
  8. eof

    eof New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have the tamron 28-75 and only have good things to say about it...a couple of days ago it woke me up with a bj and breakfast in bed. I love that lens...
     
  9. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    There's an active thread on fredmiranda on the Tamron vs. Canon. It seems split down the middle between the two. It boils down to price, if you're willing to spend an additional ~ $700 on the Canon.
     
  10. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    This sigma is better than the tamron (but bigger and heavier).

    The pictures seem washed out because they have no post processing done. All pictures look like that straight off the camera (settings are set in the camera not to mess with contrast etc). I also didn't lower the exposure and it was bright as hell outside. My fault.

    I'm going to test out the 17-85 since I already ordered it and see what I like better. The USM and IS will probably make up for the lower quality optics.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2006
  11. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    the biggest differences in image quality seem to be at the edges which a crop camera doesn't show, so unless you need lighting fast af and a good workout when you're shooting, I'd say the tamron.

    For the price difference you could have a 135mm f/2.0L or a 50mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.8, or a 10-22...
     
  12. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    That's subjective, though I've never seen anyone state that they liked the Sigma over the Tamron.

    You gotta remember that when you post pics, people are going to analyze it, otherwise, what's the point of posting unprocessed photo. It's like handing in a report to your boss and telling him, "I'll fix the spelling and punctuation errors later."
     
  13. Pineapple Devil

    Pineapple Devil beat it!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    53,752
    Likes Received:
    8
    :werd:
     
  14. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I've owned one and used both and you're wrong. :rofl: From the 3 tamron 28-75's i've used and the one 24-70.. I can tell you the Tamron was sharper but that's beside the point really. The Sigma is big, heavy, and has terrible ergonomics for a lens. The zoom ring is all the way by the mount and it's only like half an inch thick :ugh:
     
  15. lump

    lump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    17,629
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    The IS is the only reason i'm getting the 17-85. I'm a "small" person and when i'm taking pictures the wind is usually making me wobble, or my occasional spells of parkensens. the IS will be my friend.
     
  16. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    But f/4-5.6? At 85mm, 5.6 is kinda pathetic even with IS. I'd rather have a lens with f/2.8 at all focal lengths and shoot at a higher ISO to get the faster shutter speed. IS is nice but at times, it's overkill for some of the things people shoot.
     
  17. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
  18. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will disagree with you to the fullest. we use both the 24-70's and the tamron 28-75's and I always choose the 28-75. the sigma is a small chore to zoom with and its quite front heavy. unless you've got an excellent tripod, this thing will not stay put. the optics in the tamron compare quite well if not better than the sigma.
     
  19. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously not the end all be all of reviews, but take a look:

    http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470 (24-70 review)
    http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl (24-70 compared to L)
    http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/24702875 (24-70 compared to tamron)

    The tamron is a GREAT lens. Comparing them by weight and ease of use, the tamron would win. Comparing them by range and build quality, the sigma wins.

    There isn't a BIG difference between the two. I actually picked the 17-85 over the tamron and sig 24-60 because it has USM, IS, and a better range (for me because I don't have an UWA yet).

    If the canon doesn't work out, i probably wouldn't hesitate to order a tamron.

    There's no one right choice when it comes to lenses. You just have to figure out what works for you.
     
  20. mandarin orange

    mandarin orange OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    9,863
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NOVA
    before i bought my walk around lens i looked around.. the tamron got a lot better reviews and from what i could see the tamron took better pics. a lot more people seem to have the tamron and are happy with the results. i for one, love my tamron 28-75.
     
  21. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    i like using a 50 as a walkaround :dunno: I don't have a midrange zoom. just 17-35, 50, and 70-200
     
  22. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. It is an amazing lens but there are those moments when I would like to zoom... IE: getting some sweet bikini shots on the college chicks laying out on the field ;).

    But you are right and I think i'm going to use my 50mm more and compare it to the 17-85 IS to see if I would prefer primes.

    The only thing I hate is having to swap lenses :wtc:
     
  23. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    maybe you should get a point and shoot then. I would try the 28mm f/1.8 for your crop camera because it gives a nice normal field of view
     
  24. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a point and shoot and I don't like it. There is no comparing the pictures. My biggest problem is that I don't have enough experience in photography to know what exactly I need out of a lens. I already know I don't care much about macro photography.... I like landscapes, candids, and animal shots, but I've never been able to try out everything on the same lens and see how things turn out.

    For example, I can't really picture the need for a UWA lens for landscape photography when what you are shooting is so far away. In my mind I am thinking you could still capture the shot with a 30mm (on a 1.6 crop) because I don't have the shooting experience to know better.
     
  25. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    You can either go by trial and error (and waste money) or do research and read what others have to say who have been there and done that.
     

Share This Page