Which sigma lens?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Whitey, Jan 4, 2004.

  1. Whitey

    Whitey Guest

    Going to be using it with an Eos 10D & I was wondering which would be the
    better lens to go for between the following 2 ?

    Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4 ASP.EX CANON AF or the Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EX
    ASPHERICAL DG DF (CANON AF)

    Many thanks in advance of reply.
    Whitey, Jan 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Whitey

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    I woulddn't get either but would get a Canon, Tokina, or Tamron instead.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Whitey" <> wrote in message
    news:bt7rcu$93j$...
    > Going to be using it with an Eos 10D & I was wondering which would be the
    > better lens to go for between the following 2 ?
    >
    > Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4 ASP.EX CANON AF or the Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EX
    > ASPHERICAL DG DF (CANON AF)
    >
    > Many thanks in advance of reply.
    >
    >
    Tony Spadaro, Jan 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Whitey" <> wrote in message
    news:bt7rcu$93j$...
    > Going to be using it with an Eos 10D & I was wondering which would be the
    > better lens to go for between the following 2 ?
    >
    > Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4 ASP.EX CANON AF or the Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EX
    > ASPHERICAL DG DF (CANON AF)
    >
    > Many thanks in advance of reply.


    How about neither? :)

    The 17-35 EX is older and not up to Sigma's current standards, it is a good
    lens it is not a great lens. It is being replaced by a new 17-35 as we
    speak, but those aren't due to hit US shores for a few months. The 20-40 EX
    is an excellent lens, but a misfit at 20-40mm which fits nowhere.

    I would go with the 15-30 EX, it is the best lens in its class, more than
    worth the extra $150. Don't worry about the f3.5 half stop compared to the
    17-35, the 15-30 is very bright for it's aperture ratio and at 15mm you'll
    rarely need f2.8 anyway. It's also a DG, which means the rays are more
    parallel when exiting the rear element to enhance brightness with digital
    sensors. Fantastic lens. Then pick up a 28-70/2.8 EX if you are feeling
    cheap or a 24-70/2.8 EX if you want to blow another $50. Both perform very
    similarly on film but only the 24-70 is a DG.

    At that point you'll have very near the best 15-70mm money can buy at a real
    bargain price, so you can't complain about the small price increase over
    your previous plan. :)

    If you decide to get cheap and buy the 28-70 EX, realize you'll pay double
    the difference to the filter man when you discover you now need a 77mm and
    an 82mm set. The 15-30 literature says it can only take a rear gel filter,
    but the front cap is threaded for 82mm and it'll work like a champ with a
    cropping DSLR, just not full frame.
    George Preddy, Jan 4, 2004
    #3
  4. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bt8e00$6ql$...
    > It's also a DG, which means the rays are more
    > parallel when exiting the rear element to enhance brightness with digital
    > sensors.


    I did a side by with the 24-70 EX DG and 24-70 non-EX non-DG, the EX DG was
    just about exactly a half stop brighter as measured in SPP at the same
    aperture. This is important when comparing f-stops to cheaply built, less
    transmissive lenses which are not designed for digital like Canon non-L,
    Tokina, Tamron, etc.
    George Preddy, Jan 4, 2004
    #4
  5. > Going to be using it with an Eos 10D & I was wondering which would be the
    > better lens to go for between the following 2 ?
    >
    > Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4 ASP.EX CANON AF or the Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EX
    > ASPHERICAL DG DF (CANON AF)


    Uh...choice C - none of the above.
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 4, 2004
    #5
  6. Whitey

    George Kerby Guest

    On 1/3/04 7:48 PM, in article bt7rcu$93j$, "Whitey"
    <> wrote:

    > Going to be using it with an Eos 10D & I was wondering which would be the
    > better lens to go for between the following 2 ?
    >
    > Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4 ASP.EX CANON AF or the Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EX
    > ASPHERICAL DG DF (CANON AF)
    >
    > Many thanks in advance of reply.
    >
    >

    Stay with the OEM lens. Sigma = smegma. Its lenses are worse than looking
    thru the bottom of a coke bottle. The company has a HISTORY of producing
    JUNK! Ergo the foveon sensor. Buyer Beware!!!


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
    George Kerby, Jan 4, 2004
    #6
  7. Whitey

    jriegle Guest

    I have used Sigma lenses in the past and I was very pleased at the
    performance of all of them. I would not recommend them now because of the
    compatibility issues. While a new Sigma may work fine with your 10D, it may
    not work on your next digital body. You may be forced to send the lens in to
    be rechipped and loss of use for a few weeks (if they even will support the
    lens).

    I wanted to buy a used Tokina 300 or 400mm for my digital Rebel and KEH told
    be I would have to send them in to get them "rechipped" For the cost of the
    lens plus the rechipping, I can buy the Canon 300mm f/4 L used which offered
    slightly better performance.

    I don't know about Tamron's compatibility issues. It seem a safe bet to go
    Canon.

    John



    "Whitey" <> wrote in message
    news:bt7rcu$93j$...
    > Going to be using it with an Eos 10D & I was wondering which would be the
    > better lens to go for between the following 2 ?
    >
    > Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4 ASP.EX CANON AF or the Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EX
    > ASPHERICAL DG DF (CANON AF)
    >
    > Many thanks in advance of reply.
    >
    >
    jriegle, Jan 4, 2004
    #7
  8. Whitey

    Mark B. Guest

    "Whitey" <> wrote in message
    news:bt7rcu$93j$...
    > Going to be using it with an Eos 10D & I was wondering which would be the
    > better lens to go for between the following 2 ?
    >
    > Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4 ASP.EX CANON AF or the Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EX
    > ASPHERICAL DG DF (CANON AF)
    >
    > Many thanks in advance of reply.
    >
    >


    The 15-30 EX consistently gets good user reviews at dpreview.com. Might
    want to ask on the Canon SLR forum there, and ignore the Sigma nay-sayers
    here. There are a few turkeys in the Sigma lineup, but that doesn't make
    them all bad.

    Mark
    Mark B., Jan 4, 2004
    #8
  9. Whitey

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Whitey wrote:

    > Going to be using it with an Eos 10D & I was wondering which would be
    > the better lens to go for between the following 2 ?
    >
    > Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4 ASP.EX CANON AF or the Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EX
    > ASPHERICAL DG DF (CANON AF)
    >
    > Many thanks in advance of reply.


    The Sigma 15-30EX is MUCH better and only costs an extra $100
    (compared to the 17-35, which is NOT EX glass, as far as I remember.)
    Paolo Pizzi, Jan 5, 2004
    #9
  10. Whitey

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Mark B. wrote:

    > The 15-30 EX consistently gets good user reviews at dpreview.com.
    > Might want to ask on the Canon SLR forum there, and ignore the Sigma
    > nay-sayers here. There are a few turkeys in the Sigma lineup, but
    > that doesn't make them all bad.


    Sigma's EX glass is pretty good but no match for the best from
    Nikon/Canon. The 15-30 is a nice lens (I have one), but Nikkor
    wide-angle glass is much better.
    Paolo Pizzi, Jan 5, 2004
    #10
  11. "Paolo Pizzi" <> wrote in message
    news:mb2Kb.6093$...
    > Whitey wrote:
    >
    > > Going to be using it with an Eos 10D & I was wondering which would be
    > > the better lens to go for between the following 2 ?
    > >
    > > Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4 ASP.EX CANON AF or the Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EX
    > > ASPHERICAL DG DF (CANON AF)
    > >
    > > Many thanks in advance of reply.

    >
    > The Sigma 15-30EX is MUCH better and only costs an extra $100
    > (compared to the 17-35, which is NOT EX glass, as far as I remember.)


    It is EX glass, but not one of the newer ones which rival anything else out
    there. A new 17-35 EX is shipping within months.
    George Preddy, Jan 5, 2004
    #11
  12. "Paolo Pizzi" <> wrote in message
    news:pf2Kb.6094$...
    > Mark B. wrote:
    >
    > > The 15-30 EX consistently gets good user reviews at dpreview.com.
    > > Might want to ask on the Canon SLR forum there, and ignore the Sigma
    > > nay-sayers here. There are a few turkeys in the Sigma lineup, but
    > > that doesn't make them all bad.

    >
    > Sigma's EX glass is pretty good but no match for the best from
    > Nikon/Canon. The 15-30 is a nice lens (I have one), but Nikkor
    > wide-angle glass is much better.


    Lets see the pics to back that up.
    George Preddy, Jan 5, 2004
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. No Spam
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    10,392
  2. rolento

    Sigma 24-60 DG compare with sigma 24-70 DG

    rolento, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    466
    rolento
    Nov 13, 2004
  3. friglob
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    476
    Michel Souris
    Feb 6, 2006
  4. Anirudh

    Nikon Kit Lens Or Sigma Lens

    Anirudh, Mar 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    390
  5. CDZ

    Sigma Lens Question, which one...18-50 / 24-70

    CDZ, Jul 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    603
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou
    Aug 7, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page