Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 22, 2005 2:03:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

All,

Anybody have this lens? Seems to be a very good deal for $499 and the extra
length makes it more useful for "general" shooting when compared to the
16-35 f2.8L??

Many reviews I have read (including resolution tests) show this lens to be
optically better than the 17-40L, but I have not seen comparisons with the
16-35.

Thanks
musty.

More about : sigma

May 22, 2005 2:37:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in
news:qeOje.117040$h6.95611@tornado.texas.rr.com:

> All,
>
> Anybody have this lens? Seems to be a very good deal for $499 and the
> extra length makes it more useful for "general" shooting when compared
> to the 16-35 f2.8L??

Just remember that the Canon 16-35 can be used on a film camera or a full
frame digital, the Sigma DC lenses don't produce the required image circle
for that.

> Many reviews I have read (including resolution tests) show this lens
> to be optically better than the 17-40L, but I have not seen
> comparisons with the 16-35.

The Canon 17-40 is also capable of working on a full frame camera.

This point may or may not matter to you, but it is good to be aware of,
just in case.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
May 22, 2005 4:34:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
news:CKOje.402922$QY2.291022@fe01.news.easynews.com...
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in
> news:qeOje.117040$h6.95611@tornado.texas.rr.com:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Anybody have this lens? Seems to be a very good deal for $499 and the
> > extra length makes it more useful for "general" shooting when compared
> > to the 16-35 f2.8L??
>
> Just remember that the Canon 16-35 can be used on a film camera or a full
> frame digital, the Sigma DC lenses don't produce the required image circle
> for that.
>
> > Many reviews I have read (including resolution tests) show this lens
> > to be optically better than the 17-40L, but I have not seen
> > comparisons with the 16-35.
>
> The Canon 17-40 is also capable of working on a full frame camera.
>
> This point may or may not matter to you, but it is good to be aware of,
> just in case.
>

I am aware of this, but the price more than makes up for this, since in the
future (perhaps a few years from now) if I can get my hands on a FF DSLR
(hopefully for around $2K), I can always sell that Sigma. The most I can
lose on it is probably $250 or so.

My general approach is to avoid the "for digital" lenses, but I am willing
to break that rule for fast high quality glass at a low price.

For lenses such as the EF-S 10-22, which cost $800, it is hardly worth
spending so much on a lens that wont work on a FF (IMHO), especially one
that is slow. A $500 lens on the other hand which is fast (f2.8 all the way)
and has a almost a 3x zoom range, seems far more palatable. I never
considered Sigma before, but I dont see that Canon have anything that can
match it (f2.8 wide zoom for low price). And this is coming from a Canon
snob by the way (and an "L" snob to boot).

Musty.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:32:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:03:02 GMT, Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> Anybody have this lens? Seems to be a very good deal for $499 and the extra
> length makes it more useful for "general" shooting when compared to the
> 16-35 f2.8L??

I've had it for a little over a week. I've done a bunch of street
shooting with it.

cons
o pronounced yellow cast
o some vignetting on my 20D
pros
o I like the way the pix look
o terrific size and weight for a lens of this
focal length range and maximum aperture

Due to the style of shots I've been taking with it, I can't really
tell you anything about its sharpness. And I should really sit down
and play and find out whether the vignetting is across the focal
length range or only at some lengths, and also find out how far I
need to stop down to make it disappear.

Overall I am very happy with this lens.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
May 23, 2005 12:28:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ben Rosengart" <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd919gv.g9e.br@panix5.panix.com...
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:03:02 GMT, Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > Anybody have this lens? Seems to be a very good deal for $499 and the
extra
> > length makes it more useful for "general" shooting when compared to the
> > 16-35 f2.8L??
>
> I've had it for a little over a week. I've done a bunch of street
> shooting with it.
>

Thanks for the response. Have you done any 100% crop comparisons for
sharpness? How does it behave at the extremes:

18mm open wide (f2.8)
50mm open wide (f2.8)

Thanks
Musty.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:43:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:28:39 GMT, Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the response. Have you done any 100% crop comparisons for
> sharpness?

No. Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. :-) Seriously, if I do
attempt some tests, I'll post results, but don't hold your breath.
There are some reviews out on the 'net though.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:43:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:28:39 GMT, Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the response. Have you done any 100% crop comparisons for
>>sharpness?
>
>
> No. Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. :-)

Everyone with soft lenses justifiably believes so! ;-)

A soft lens can't be made sharp; a sharp lens can be made soft.


Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 8:36:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:09:21 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> A soft lens can't be made sharp;

Any glass lens can be made sharp. Won't be much use as a lens
afterwards though.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
May 24, 2005 8:18:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ben Rosengart" <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd93uht.fgc.br@panix5.panix.com...
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:28:39 GMT, Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the response. Have you done any 100% crop comparisons for
> > sharpness?
>
> No. Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. :-) Seriously, if I do
> attempt some tests, I'll post results, but don't hold your breath.
> There are some reviews out on the 'net though.
>

The reviews I have read are mixed. I am curious as to how this lens comapres
to the far more expensive Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L.

Musty.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 1:16:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> Many reviews I have read (including resolution tests) show this lens to be
> optically better than the 17-40L


It's not.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 9:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 25 May 2005 09:16:25 -0700, briansgooglegroupemail@yahoo.com
<briansgooglegroupemail@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Musty wrote:
>
>> Many reviews I have read (including resolution tests) show this lens to be
>> optically better than the 17-40L
>
> It's not.

At f/3.5 and faster it's appreciably better. Also from 40-50mm. :-)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 10:15:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<briansgooglegroupemail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117037785.941470.177250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Musty wrote:
>
>> Many reviews I have read (including resolution tests) show this lens to
>> be
>> optically better than the 17-40L
>
>
> It's not.

I too am looking for a lens in this range for my 20D, and had pretty much
decided on the 17-40L. Then I saw this thread, and read it with great
interest because of course I'd love to be able to get a less expensive lens
that produces great results. I *wanted* people to wax poetic about the Sigma
18-50. So, after reading the comments here, I wandered over to pbase.com and
looked at several hundred pictures taken with the 18-50 and the 17-40L.
Now.....I am NO expert. I'm new to using high quality equipment to do
digital photography (I have a 20D and a Canon 70-200 f4L lens), but I know
what I like, even if I don't yet know all the proper terminology. I will
readily admit this is not a scientific test by any stretch of the
imagination...but I did look at hundreds of pictures, so hopefully a lot of
the variables averaged out. Bottom line (imho)...overall, and by a
significant majority, the pictures taken with the 17-40L look much better.
They are sharper/crisper, and the colours look richer and more vibrant. It
was relatively easy to find pics in the 17-40L folders that 'jumped out at
me'...pics of this type are much rarer in the Sigma 18-50 offerings...they
are there...but I really had to look for them. I also noticed that there are
a significant number of real dogs (and I'm not talking about 4 footed
animals) in the Sigma pictures...photos I wouldn't even put up for public
viewing. What this is indicative of, I have no idea. Maybe users of the
Sigma 18-50 find pics of that quality to be acceptable, since that is
apparently what they end up with a lot of the time.

I'll keep lusting after the 17-40L.

my 2 cents

WW
!