You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Photography LabTHIS SPACE OPEN FOR ADVERTISEMENT. YOU SHOULD BE ADVERTISING HERE!
A place to display digital masterpieces, enhance photography skills, photoshop, and share photo tips with one another...
Neone tried the sigma 24-70 2.8 for Canon?
Or is the Canon that much better used prices are about 40-50% that of the canon 24-70 >.<
I use a 40D and have the 17-40 F4L
Hi guys, I shoot with a lowly Nikon D40, with the 18-55mm kit.
I am thinking about getting the 16-85mm VR as a upgrade to an all-purpose lens... is this a good idea?
Are the optics far superior (sharper) in the 16-85? I briefly considered the 18-200mm VR, but it seems like I'll never use the 100-200mm range.
Ever consider a third-party constant aperture lens like the Sigma 18-50 2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 2.8? I replaced my EF-S 17-85 with the Sigma and I almost use the Sigma exclusively (along with my 50mm). I'd imagine they're all in the same price bracket, plus it's a nice benefit to have the constant aperture (2.8 although soft, is pretty handy in low-light).
Haven't used the 16-85, but from my experience (and reviews) the two third party lenses are very sharp- assuming you buy *in store* and try multiple copies.
Ever consider a third-party constant aperture lens like the Sigma 18-50 2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 2.8? I replaced my EF-S 17-85 with the Sigma and I almost use the Sigma exclusively (along with my 50mm). I'd imagine they're all in the same price bracket, plus it's a nice benefit to have the constant aperture (2.8 although soft, is pretty handy in low-light).
Haven't used the 16-85, but from my experience (and reviews) the two third party lenses are very sharp- assuming you buy *in store* and try multiple copies.
I've read enough comments like this to almost make me go Original brand route...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever
If, for whatever reason you go the Sigma route, I would suggest not buying on-line. I would go to a store and try out their lenses, as Sigma's QC tolerances are so loose that the lenses vary greatly in image quality. They may back focus, front focus & even have a tilted plane of focus. Yes, the back focus & front focus problems can be compensated for in higher end bodies, but not every DSLR has this feature. Sigma & Tamron are notorious for this.
I've read enough comments like this to almost make me go Original brand route...
Well that's why I said try it in store. I tried 2 Tamrons, and 1 Sigma, and luckily the Sigma was the sharpest out of the bunch. Just thought I'd mention the "cheaper" (in price, not IQ) route considering the difference between the Nikon and the 3rd-party lenses is quite substantial (~$200)
Doing a quick check Photozone says that the 16-85 is sharp throughout the range, and having the extra reach is pretty nice. So it seems if you're looking at it, you can't really go wrong.
Well that's why I said try it in store. I tried 2 Tamrons, and 1 Sigma, and luckily the Sigma was the sharpest out of the bunch. Just thought I'd mention the "cheaper" (in price, not IQ) route considering the difference between the Nikon and the 3rd-party lenses is quite substantial (~$200)
Doing a quick check Photozone says that the 16-85 is sharp throughout the range, and having the extra reach is pretty nice. So it seems if you're looking at it, you can't really go wrong.
There is definitely a price premium to be considered. I'll definitely checkout Sigma perhaps in real life. Thanks for the inputs!
i definitely agree with trying several sigmas in store. about 2 years ago i bought a sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 because upon comparing it with canon's 17-85, i felt the colors were better and the image was sharper with the sigma than the canon 17-85, and price was good overall too.
the sigma copy i had was pretty even on the colors, it didn't really exhibit that slight warmer tone i've seen on others. either that, or it must have been the settings i had on the camera (i was shooting jpeg then)
the sigma copy i had was pretty even on the colors, it didn't really exhibit that slight warmer tone i've seen on others. either that, or it must have been the settings i had on the camera (i was shooting jpeg then)
Shoot some slide film. You'll notice it.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
thanks senna, i'll keep that in mind when i buy a film slr (which i have been meaning to, just lazy to get around to it).
on a side note, ever have experience with voigtlander lenses on a dslr? i read somewhere voigtlander (the new ones) are rechipped/re-mounted so that they work on nikon/pentax/canon dslrs.
i saw the 20mm f/3.5 color-skopar and the image on 5d mkII was amazing!
Anyone know what the "wholesale" cost of a lenses roughly is? For say a lense that cost $700, how much markup is on theses things? Something I've always wondered about..
Anyone know what the "wholesale" cost of a lenses roughly is? For say a lense that cost $700, how much markup is on theses things? Something I've always wondered about..
Mark-up on camera bodies and lenses isn't much, about 3%-6%.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
Hey guys, need some advice here... I want to get a telephoto lens, and so far have only experienced with 18-55mm. Here are the ones that I am currently looking at... Trying to go for a good bang/buck ratio
I'm thinking of just throwing down and spending a good deal of money on this telephoto, instead of spending 200-300$ on a 200-300mm and get mediocore to not good quality. Am I right to assume so ? Give me some advice guys!
What body do you have, and what's your budget? I'd get the 17-55 f2.8 & the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II, but that is pretty expensive. For something a bit more affordable, I'd suggest the 16-85mm ED VR or 18-105mm VR & the 70-300mm ED VR.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
Can someone explain the zoom range ? Like the 18-200mm lens I'm looking at has a 11.1x zoom range vs the 300mm one which only has a 4.3x zoom range. What difference will it look like in my pictures?
The 17-55 f2.8 & the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II are definitely out of my budget though ... something under 1000?
Can someone explain the zoom range ? Like the 18-200mm lens I'm looking at has a 11.1x zoom range vs the 300mm one which only has a 4.3x zoom range. What difference will it look like in my pictures?
The 17-55 f2.8 & the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II are definitely out of my budget though ... something under 1000?
I just picked up the Nikkor 16-85mm VR. GREAT lens. I love the 16mm.
What kind of things do you like taking pictures of?
I really like taking pictures of landscapes.. so I really like the 16mm on the 16-85mm VR. The 18-200 is heavier, bigger, more expensive, a little bit less image quality. Since most of my photos never need Telephoto, I didn't think I needed the 100-200mm part. If you want a cheap telephoto, you could always get a 55-200mm. Very inexpensive and good quality lens.
Well what I'm asking is ... will I get a drastic difference with closer up shots i.e indoor shots that don't require telephoto? And how much clearer will a 500$ lens vs a 8xx$ be?
You'll notice a little bit of difference, but only if you print big. What's your final image size going to be?
I haven't found a reason to print big yet, so right now I've only printed regular size so far (4x6). I do a lot of sharing photos online so that's a reason I don't want to lose quality.
So, the 70-300mm will probably work for me at a pretty decent price (giving me the telephoto that I want) and allowing me to take decent everyday photos?
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
