- Last post
- 11 Responses
Just watched a DigitalRev review of the 18-35, and Kai Wong seemed to think it was quite a bit of all right, the guy who runs The Digital Picture seems to really like the 35mm. Sigma also announced the 24-105 coming out.
Any of you have experience with these lenses? How do they compare (sharpness/colour/contrast) to L lenses? I want new glass, but if I go L, I'd still be a few months away from getting something.
i use the sigma 17-50 and the 70-200 and i have nothing but great things to say about them, they are a great price too. the 70-200 was second hand but i brought the 17-50 new, both are 2.8f throughout the range, i have looked at both the 85 and the 35 and the 35 has had some stunning reviews. the difference between the canon 18-55 and the sigma 17-50 is marginal, the price difference is enough to jump to the sigma.
The 35mm reviews got me interested because it's a prime, I want to stay away from zooms. I might end up trying to rent one, if any of the shops in town have them on offer (which they might not, they tend to only do Canon, Nikon and Zeiss).
- i'd love either the 35 or 85. both prime. prime's are great. i just wanted a zoom for wider shots and that lens replaced my kit.cruddlebub
- kit lenscruddlebub
- Yeah, the 18-55 has always been utter crap. I actually ditched it, and the only lens I've got right now is my Canon 50/1.4Continuity
- Well, ditched it when I still had my 450D. I use the 7D now.Continuity
- i use the 40d, love it but need to upgrade, looking at the 70d.cruddlebub
- I'd wait for next year, if I were you; Canon Rumors seems to think the 7D mark II is coming out round March-time.Continuity
- ohhh i say! thats a great shout! the 70d is pretty amazing though. which can only mean the 7d mkii cant fail.cruddlebub
L lens's are still up at the top, don't get me wrong, you pay for what you get in that instance, but i don't think you'd be upset if you were to get a sigma instead.
I have the Sigma 85 and I am more than happy with it. If I could chose again between that and the L, I would still go Sigma - nice and sharp, well built and a good chunk cheaper
I find sigma Lenses miss focus more often then L Lens and focus a bit slower. by tiny bit. but still better than other third party lenses. imo
Hm, hmm. Thanks boys; I'll definitely try and rent the 35mm 'A' lens. As it happens I'm spending a couple of days in Paris next week, so it would be a good place to field-test it.
I have the Sigma 50mm 1.4, its really great. Its better than the Canon 50/1.4 but not as good at the Canon 50/1.2. The price is between the 1.2 and 1.4 Canons too.
The reason I bought it over the Canon 1.4 was the bokeh is so nice and the colours are warmer. Will probably get a 1.2 anyway soon.
I think my next lenses will be the sigmas. I'm using 2 previous gen nikon prime lenses, but all the reviews I've read say these sigmas are the real deal, especially with the $aving$
quick opinion please, guys... I have a sigma 18-70mm lens. It takes the most amazing pics and you never need to change lenses.
BUT it focuses so damn slowly! really rubbish for sports. Anyone else find this with sigma's?.. or is it the nature of a macro zoom lens and unavoidable? or is it because I have a cheap nikon5200 body?
Had a sigma 10-20mm .. it was nice.. wasnt amazing, but did the job..
became redundant when I switched to Full frame and the 16-35 L i had actually became its correct length..
which incidentally with crop factors, ended up being the same.