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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 26, 2005, 2:46 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Aumma45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,940
Default

Hards80,

I check Sigma4less and found their price quite acceptable 364 dollars. I placed the order a few minutes ago, they said they are processing it. I guess I will have to do some waiting as I have used USPS. The other alternative was about 157 dollars. Let's wait and see what happens. As Arowana said, I have nothing to loose using the Tamron or the Sigma. Thanks a lot for the valuable advice. Will keep you posted. Once I have received the Sigma 24-70, then I will go for the 70-200. Again thanks.
Aumma45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2005, 4:32 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Again, I have to agree with Hards80 on to 70-200 question. Although I have not had the pleasure of useing the Sigma 70-200 2.8 just yet, Iam sure it is just as fantastic as the other lenses in there EX line-up. As for the Canon 70-200 f/4, I did have that lens for a couple of days. It was really light and in most cases fast and sharp but the extra reach on the 100-300 Sigma was the right choice for me. Its just as fast, just as sharp if not sharper and with the 1.4 TC connected this lens is just short of amazing. The only hold back is the weight and lack of OS. I think the 80-400 will be my next purchase.

Let me know how Sigma4lessdoes on shipping your lens. I had thought about ordering something from those guys but I am still a bit leary from straying away from my useual guys up north.


arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 10:41 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Aumma45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,940
Default

Arowana, Will let you know about the Sigma 24-70 on the shipping. They gave me two alternatives but as I indicated the 157 $ was on the higher. So I chose the USPS. A bit of waiting though, but it willeventually arrive.

As for the 70-200mm, I will go for the canon. First because I am dying to own a canon lens. Second its has a good rating and all of you seem to say this is the lens for the pick. Third, the optics are very good so far from the reviews. Fourth, I will use it mostly out doors. But I guess it can be used indoors especially if I crank up the ISO. Fifth, in terms of weight, it is managable.Sixth it seems affordable though for me, I will have to starve quite a bit to save up for this one. Now the price ranges from 570- 720 $. If you find anything affordable, please let me know. I was once adviced that a good lens is indispensable.

Cheers.
Aumma45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 10:43 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Aumma45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,940
Default

A bit leary too about ordering from a source I am not used to, but Hards80gave me the confidence to go to Sigma4less. Their prices are attractive too. It seem presently they are updating their website. Don't have the dough now so have abandoned the Tamron. Perhaps in future. One step at a time.
Aumma45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 11:55 AM   #25
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

if you do ever decide you need a tamron, or just want one, their 17-35 2.8-4.0 is a nice little wide angle lens and would compliment your 24-70 and 70-200 quite well..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2005, 12:20 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Aumma45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,940
Default

Hi folks,

Been a while. Still waiting for the Sigma 24-70 to arrive. I did not think of a wide lens until hards80 suggested the Tamron 17-35. I have done some reading and the lens has a good review. I also decided to read on the Sigma of a similar range. Some days ago someone also suggested a Tokina 12-24. I went to see these lenses physically in the nearest store. Compared to the big names like B&H, the prices here are doubled. So buying them on the net is a prefered option. One thing that seems to have struck me is that the Tamron not use the hood and a filter: polarizer or UV filter at the same time. Did I read correctly? Also let me know your general informed assessment If I were to choose between the the Tamron and Sigma 17-35mm.

I did raise this issue before. On my 350D 17-35 becomes 27-56. Do you think I loose out on the the range between 12-27mm. As you know I am only a beginner and don't have anything in mind should anyone say it depends on what you want to do. Is the difference between 12-27 really significant?:?
Aumma45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2005, 12:36 AM   #27
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

aumma..

congrats on the 24-70.. as fstopjojo will confirm, you won't be disappointed in this one..

i do not have the tamron 17-35, but i am sure you can use the hood and the filter at the same time.. the problem with a hood and a polarizer on ANY lens is that its awfully hard to spin the polarizer with the hood in the way.. i wouldnt worry about that too much.. as for the tamron versus the sigma.. i am a big sigma fan, but for this particular 17-35 focal length, the reviews are much better for the tamron for whatever reason.. so i would probably err on the side of caution and go for the tamron in this instance..

as for focal lenght, you are never going to get down to 12mm on your 1.6 crop factor camera.. even with a 12-24 you are going to have a 19-37ish camera.. so the difference is really 27-56 (on the 17-35) vs 19-37 (on the 12-24).. whether or not that is significant for you is totally based on what you are normally shooting.. for many ppl the 17-35 is plenty wide, even for landscapes and such.. but others like a superwide look.. my personal opinion is that the 17-35 is more versatile and you will use it more often..

best regards, dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2005, 12:22 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Aumma45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,940
Default

Yah, I agree the Tamron does have better rating from my reading and the comparisons made with theSigma. Beingagood lens,I also think itis good to have a different brand, I mean a Tamron instead of a Sigma.

Hards80, you recommended Sigma4less and I tell you they have been very good so farin their services. Do you mind recommending an affordablevendor for the Tamron 17-35mm. Will deeply appreciate.

Kind regards.
Aumma45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2005, 12:42 AM   #29
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

for everything else but sigma, i go through B&H (bhphotovideo.com).. they aren't always the cheapest.. but i know that i can trust them.. and they will call me and confirm my orders and delivery and their return service is top-notch..

i am sure there is someone cheaper, i just have trouble trusting alot of them..

good luck and please let me know what you think of the lens.. i am in the market for something along those lines..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2005, 5:53 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Aumma45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,940
Default

Ok will follow your advice. I bought a Sigma Macro lense 105mm F/2.8 from B&H on the 28th July. I have not received it todate. Well, I guess I have to keep waiting. Otherwise will take your advice. I think they sell it for 499$. Will keep you posted.
Aumma45 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 7:32 PM.