Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 19, 2010, 1:09 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3
Default Sigma 10-20mm for my Rebel XT?

I've been shooting with my Canon EOS Rebel XT for a couple years now, and am generally happy with it. But I'm not a huge fan of my lens. It's a Tamron 28-80mm. My old PowerShot A80 takes clearer photos (!), and gives the appearance of having a wider angle.

From the threads here and help from friends, I think I have somewhat of a handle on the focal length factor thing. I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong - that my A80 will go down to what is basically the equivalent of ~38mm and my Rebel ~44.

What I'd like to do is replace the Tamron I always use with a clearer, wider one. With just a bit of a zoom. For less than $400.

I generally take portraits of children and landscapes. When I look at photos on Flickr, it seems the Sigma 10-20mm is the look I love for most things - closer to 10mm for landscapes, at 20mm for portraits. (I see a discussion on Flickr where they say the lens distortion on the Sigma 10-20 isn't good for portraits, nor is the f-stop fast enough. But I simply love the look of most of the portraits on this page: http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10...7608216978322/)

If I stuck this lens on my body, I'd end up at 16-32mm, correct? This sounds perfect to me. But I'm having a hard time finding any examples of this lens used on my camera body. Would the distortion be horrible at (the equivalent of) 20mm? Also wondering if there is another, less expensive, option for my needs.

All advice so greatly appreciated!
DandyTrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 19, 2010, 5:11 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Even at its narrowest, the Sigma 10-20 will be a lot wider than the 28-80 you've got now. Are you sure that's what you want? The 10-20 would be good for landscapes, but it's not the type of lens you'd use to shoot children or portraits. If the focal length of your 28-80 is about right (it's just not sharp enough), a better chocie might be the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. It's wider than the lens you're using now, but it's still long enough for children and portrature. And it's very sharp.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2010, 3:08 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

the sigma 10-20mm give you a really wide angle, you are basically going 44mm down to 16mm at the wide end. And only going to 32mm on the long end. If this is the route you want to go, I would keep the tamron, as you may want more reach at times. This is a very wide angle, and it may not be good for taking thing up close, as ultra wide angles really distorted object very close to the camera.

Or if you may really want to consider tcav suggestion of the sigma 17-70mm You will get around 28mm on the wide end and still have decent reach out to about 110mm on the long end. In the full frame world 24-28mm is a good working distance for landscape.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2010, 9:27 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Dandy Trail-

TCav's suggestion is a good one. I shoot with the Sigma 17-70mm with my XSi and like it a lot . In a pinch it could handle your landscape, and it would be perfect for children's portraits.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2010, 10:28 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
dr_spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879
Default

You can get a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 for around $370 USD. For around $450 USD you can get the OS version with image stabilization, quiet HSM focus motor and F4 instead of F4.5 at the 70mm end.
dr_spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2010, 3:47 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_spock View Post
You can get a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 for around $370 USD. For around $450 USD you can get the OS version with image stabilization, quiet HSM focus motor and F4 instead of F4.5 at the 70mm end.
... but the OS version isn't as good.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2010, 10:35 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3
Default

Thank you so much for replying to my newbie question.

I never use the zoom on my current lens - it's always at its widest, and I'm constantly wishing I had so, so, so much more room. This shot on Flickr is the look I want for the pictures I take of my kids, and it's taken at a real 18mm.

This weekend, I paid closer attention to what I shoot. I realized I do an awful lot of inside shots, trying to tell the story, showing the room behind my subject. Much of this is in low-light conditions (I seem to be at ISO 800-1600 an awful lot).

I'm guessing y'all are using full-frame cameras with these lenses (although I realize I shouldn't assume anything ...)? When I look at the equivalents when used with my body, I don't like the numbers. I think I'd be happy with the equivalent of ~<20mm at the wide end and ~35mm at the other.

This leaves me at 12-22mm.

The Tokina 12-24mm seems to fit this bill, and the Tamron 10-24mm goes even a tad wider, and is less expensive.

Hmmm.
DandyTrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2010, 10:47 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

indoor with high iso I would look at the tokina 11-16 2.8 also, the 2.8 can be helpful for the low light conditions over the 12-24 f4
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2010, 10:50 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Also you may want to consider that the kit lens wide open is at 3.5, you are actually losing 1/2 stop with f4. And if you are at at 1600, F4 may push you to low down you shutter speed on the XT.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Jun 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2010, 1:50 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
rienz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Middle East
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DandyTrail View Post
I've been shooting with my Canon EOS Rebel XT for a couple years now, and am generally happy with it. But I'm not a huge fan of my lens. It's a Tamron 28-80mm. My old PowerShot A80 takes clearer photos (!), and gives the appearance of having a wider angle.

From the threads here and help from friends, I think I have somewhat of a handle on the focal length factor thing. I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong - that my A80 will go down to what is basically the equivalent of ~38mm and my Rebel ~44.

What I'd like to do is replace the Tamron I always use with a clearer, wider one. With just a bit of a zoom. For less than $400.

I generally take portraits of children and landscapes. When I look at photos on Flickr, it seems the Sigma 10-20mm is the look I love for most things - closer to 10mm for landscapes, at 20mm for portraits. (I see a discussion on Flickr where they say the lens distortion on the Sigma 10-20 isn't good for portraits, nor is the f-stop fast enough. But I simply love the look of most of the portraits on this page: http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10...7608216978322/)

If I stuck this lens on my body, I'd end up at 16-32mm, correct? This sounds perfect to me. But I'm having a hard time finding any examples of this lens used on my camera body. Would the distortion be horrible at (the equivalent of) 20mm? Also wondering if there is another, less expensive, option for my needs.

All advice so greatly appreciated!
In 2008 I've used Sigma 10-20mm with my Canon 400D ... although it is a nice lens it is definately not suitable for portraits especially indoors (so I sold the lens in 2009 and bought a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 lens ... once agian a very good lens but definately not for protraits ... but I still have this lens). I've also used Tamon 18-50mm f/2.8 (non-VC) lens ... this was a great lens both for general purpose (including protraits) as well as low light (I sold this for Canon 17-40L) ... but just yesterday I placed an order for Tamron 18-50mm f/2.8 VC lens from Japan amazon site (it used to be around USD 640 till last week but now they are selling it for about USD380) ... check this site http://www.amazon.co.jp/TAMRON-AF17-...2&sr=1-1-fkmr0 (my order will be picked up by my Japanese boss who goes to Japan 4 times a year) ... you might want to consider this lens ... also if they've reduced the price on amazon I am sure they will eventually reduce it on their US site and maybe even in B&H etc

Last edited by rienz; Jun 22, 2010 at 1:55 PM.
rienz 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 8:47 AM.