August 18th, 2007, 08:36 AM
Sigma stuff is great. I've actually been more impressed with Sigma's lenses in a lot of cases than I have been with Nikon's. They seem to me to be more ruggedly built and they definitely focus much quieter. Also, they tend to hunt less with their AF.
Originally Posted by trdi
The price point can't be argued with, either. Usually about 10-15% less than your name brand gear.
Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Bullets are cheap. Life is priceless.
August 18th, 2007, 09:06 AM
Since I already have the 70-200 f4, I am not going to dump it for a 2.8 so I am going to have to make due. I guess I'm going to have to suck it up and spend $900 for the S lens or be content with the 18-55 kit lens.
August 18th, 2007, 09:52 AM
August 18th, 2007, 10:45 AM
I don't think you have to worry about Canon's APC sized sensors (1.6 crop) going anywhere for a long, long time. Having only two full frame models, it lends some justification as to why you would spend $8000 on their flagship camera (1Ds Mk II). If they moved all their bodies to full frame, they would have a hard time convincing pros that a slightly better Digic processor, AF, and weather sealing is worth $6000. This, coupled with the the fact that of all three sensor sizes that they offer, the 1.6 crop has been by far the most successful, and the concentration recently on only rolling out EF-s lenses (there hasn't been a new EF in a long time, only updates), I think Canon is convinced the 1.6 crop sensor is a HUGE potential market for them, the entry DSLR is where it is at right now, which means APC sensors, even for prosumer bodies.
Originally Posted by rinkrat
As for the gap between 55-70, I don't think you will miss it at all. For a full frame, that is a gap between 88mm and 112mm. I currently have a gap from 85mm and 135mm, so a considerably wider gap than you will see, and I still don't feel the need to run out and get a 100mm, I don't even think about it.
As for the 17-85mm f/4-5.6, it all depends on what you want it for. If you are shooting outdoors or with flash, it will be a great lens. One of the interesting things about it though is that the majority of the zoom range is actually in the f/5.6 range. If I recall correctly, the stops are as follows:
17 mm - f/4
22 mm - f/4.5
24 mm - f/5.6
So at 24mm, you are already at the slow end of the lens. The IS is good for 2 to 3 stops, so you could conceivably hand hold this lens at f/5.6 with IS where you could do it with a f/2.8 or f/2.0 without IS, but it only helps you when your subject is static, so not great for people in moderate action. So, if you need 1/200 sec to get the shot with a f/2.8, you are going to need to go down to 1/50 sec with a f/5.6, which is a lot more time to get motion blur in your subject.
I always hate making these decisions, because one is almost twice the cost of the other, but you do get 4 times the amount light, therefor 4 times the speed. Really, it all comes down to what to do with the lens and what is important to you. For me, I am such a sucker for natural light and background blur, I almost always go for the faster lens, which almost always results in a dispute with the wifey over the cost
August 18th, 2007, 10:56 AM
August 18th, 2007, 11:24 AM
I think you are going to love that lens, it will be on your camera constantly.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_17_55_28_is_usm - just keep on clicking on "more"
August 18th, 2007, 11:30 AM
August 18th, 2007, 12:30 PM
August 19th, 2007, 02:49 PM
110.60 mm = 4.35433 in
Damn i hope I can get into Staples with the extra .35433 of an inch. Anyone know how strict they are on the 4" rule?
August 19th, 2007, 08:01 PM
I'd be currious to hear the answer to this, as my EF 135 is about 4.25"