Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 20, 2004, 2:09 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

I know this question has been asked...but I wanted to ask it again since the newer Sigma was released.

I need to get a wide angle type lens but can't afford the Canon L lens prices. I had heard that this Sigma might be an ok way to go for a while.

Sigma 17-35 mm f2.8-4.0 EX DG HSM

Does anyone have any other suggestions for my 10D?

Thanks










Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 20, 2004, 4:49 PM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Check here, it's been OK for me: http://www.pbase.com/nhl/p_carribean

Most shots are with the "older" Sigma 17-35mm F/2.8-4.0 EX HSM, the others are with the EF 28-135mm IS USM. The newer Sigma has a smaller front filter (77mm vs 82mm), closer minimum focus and a decouple focusing ring... ie mostly improvements over the older one.

Here's a picture @ f/2.8:
Attached Images
 
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 10:37 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

Wow! You have some incredible images on that site. Thank you. Lens looks pretty decent to me...
Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2004, 9:43 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 18
Default

It smokes for the money.

Remember, we're talking the 10D here...

It's my main axe too, but it is not a 1Ds or a $22k back - it is a 10D.

Do you want to spend on a lens that will never get 'opened up' - that you will never use to its full potential? (Which the Canon may not be anyway...)

Unless you really think that you'll keep the lens long term and use it on a more sophisticated camera in the future, go for it...
mscott821 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2004, 10:48 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

mscott821 wrote:
Quote:
It smokes for the money.

Remember, we're talking the 10D here...

It's my main axe too, but it is not a 1Ds or a $22k back - it is a 10D.

Do you want to spend on a lens that will never get 'opened up' - that you will never use to its full potential? (Which the Canon may not be anyway...)

Unless you really think that you'll keep the lens long term and use it on a more sophisticated camera in the future, go for it...

That's a good question. Right now, I am going to use this camera for a bunch of portrait and glam stuff. So I will be using it a lot.... but the difference to the Canon of the extra $200 or so is a tough call... will I buy another body down the line? It is likely, I have been doing various types of photography for over 10 years, this will be my 4th digital
Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2004, 6:00 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Zendragon wrote:
Quote:
That's a good question. Right now, I am going to use this camera for a bunch of portrait and glam stuff. So I will be using it a lot.... but the difference to the Canon of the extra $200 or so is a tough call... will I buy another body down the line? It is likely, I have been doing various types of photography for over 10 years, this will be my 4th digital
This is the wrong lens for Portrait or Glam... (too much DOF and wrong perspective). All you need is a $70 EF-50mm f/1.8 or may be spend that $200 extra on the metal f/1.4 variance!

:idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2004, 11:16 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Zendragon wrote:
Quote:
That's a good question. Right now, I am going to use this camera for a bunch of portrait and glam stuff. So I will be using it a lot.... but the difference to the Canon of the extra $200 or so is a tough call... will I buy another body down the line? It is likely, I have been doing various types of photography for over 10 years, this will be my 4th digital
This is the wrong lens for Portrait or Glam... (too much DOF and wrong perspective). All you need is a $70 EF-50mm f/1.8 or may be spend that $200 extra on the metal f/1.4 variance!

:idea:
I have to disagree with you on that point. My studio doesn't have enough distance for me to work with. I have the EF 50mm and while it is great for head shots, there is no way I will get a 3/4 or full length.

My 28-70 is fine for 3/4 but still can't capture full length.

So that leaves me needing an ultra wide angle lens to give me the focal length that a 50mm would normally give me for the full length stuff.

Or, I move my studio which isn't my best choice I think at the moment.

Are you saying that an ultra wide angle won't allow me to get those full legnth photos? Or will it make it look like crud? I don't want to get something that won't help me.
Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2004, 12:42 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Zendragon wrote:
Quote:
My 28-70 is fine for 3/4 but still can't capture full length.
... You need a bigger studio then!
1. You don't have the distance
2. Up close a WA will give you the wrong perspective
3. How do you light-up this tiny studio?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2004, 12:54 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Zendragon wrote:
Quote:
My 28-70 is fine for 3/4 but still can't capture full length.
... You need a bigger studio then!

That still doesn't tell me whether the Ultra wide will work for what I mainly want it for... Any ideas?
Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2004, 3:21 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Zendragon wrote:
Quote:
My 28-70 is fine for 3/4 but still can't capture full length.
... You need a bigger studio then!
2. Up close a WA will give you the wrong perspective

NHL hits the nail on the head, that's the key word.

Solving the problem by using WA/shorter lens for limited space portrait studio is insane, you results will look strange and funny, you have no choice but get a bigger studio, period.

For the new Sigma 17-35mm F/2.8-4 EX DG lens, I heard nothing but praise for its excellent performance.



Cheers




tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:06 PM.