 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2005Alternative to Canon 24-70 f2.8L
Really would like one but it is way over budget. So does anyone have any experience with the alternatives like the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or the Tokina 28-80 f2.8? They all seem to get pretty good reviews. (except for the funky manual focus procedure for the Sigma) I would really like to get as close to 18MM as possible, but with an f2.8 aperture. What do you kind folks think? T.W. > Really would like one but it is way over budget. > So does anyone have any experience with the alternatives [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > T.W. The larger the F-stop, and the wider the lens the more money you are going to pay. If you go with one of the after market lenses it is going to cost less. However, some of the lenses are not as good as the Canon Lenses. Some are better. So you have to go to a store that will let you take a look at them. roland > However, some of the lenses are not as good as the Canon Lenses. Some > are better. So you have to go to a store that will let you take a look > at them. > > roland Sorry Roland, no such store in my town. They had to order the 50MM prime for me from another store and they won't order lenses for me to try out unless I intend to purchase it... Small town, small overhead you know. T.W. >Really would like one but it is way over budget. >So does anyone have any experience with the alternatives [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >What do you kind folks think? I have the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG. On an APS size digital sensor, at 24mm it is very soft wide open and the centre doesn't get sharp until f/8. The edges are never sharp, even at f/16. At 35mm and longer focal lengths, it gets sharp in the centre by f/5.6 and sharp at the edges by f/8. At 28mm the performance lies somewhere in between, with good sharpness across the frame at f/11. I have another lens that covers the 24-28mm range so I rarely use this one at focal lengths shorter than 28mm. It ain't no Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, not by a long way, neither in terms of optical performance nor in build quality - it is far too light to be robust. But it costs a fraction of the price. Your call. "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message > I have the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG. > > It ain't no Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, not by a long way, neither in terms > of optical performance nor in build quality - it is far too light to > be robust. But it costs a fraction of the price. Your call. Thanks for all the info (that I snipped out in this reply) Tony. I would be using this lens primarily for fairly close (3-15 feet) pictures of the grandkids, and especially for portrait type shots the sharpness of this lens isn't terrible, is it? T.W. >"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message >> I have the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >of the grandkids, and especially for portrait type shots the sharpness >of this lens isn't terrible, is it? No, it isn't terrible, not by a long way. It has the useful constant f/2.8 maximum aperture, which is great for when the light is bad. Just stay away from the 24mm end, except when you cannot possibly avoid it. Used as a 28-70mm at f/8 - f/11, it produces fine results. Think of it as a very good 28-70mm - with 24mm just for emergencies. > Really would like one but it is way over budget. Buy one anyway - you'll get FANTASTIC results, and it's not like it's something that you'll have to upgrade in 18 months. We take photos bacause we want to remember and admire things - why degrade those images right from the start by buying compromised glass? >> Really would like one but it is way over budget. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We take photos bacause we want to remember and admire things - why degrade > those images right from the start by buying compromised glass? I agree! If you have any lens at all on your camera use that and save until you can afford the 24-70. If you just have the body, and no lens, get an inexpensive prime or the kit lens and use that until you can afford the 24-70. If you purchase cheaper f2.8 glass you may very well upgrade to the Canon lens later anyway which will in the end cost you more money than just going for the Canon glass to start with. Chuck >>> Really would like one but it is way over budget. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > until > you can afford the 24-70. > Chuck Ok Chuck and CJ, thanks for the input, but way over budget means just that. I would love to have the top of the line Caddy to drive also, but have to settle for a Buick LeSabre. Damn fine car, but not quite a Cadillac. You know what I mean? I guess I am looking for a Buick priced lens with alot of the Cadillac qualities that everyone loves.... T.W. > Ok Chuck and CJ, thanks for the input, but way over budget means just that. What you need is my time-tested technique ... "Buy now, justify later" - justifying it is always easier once you already have it - it's worked like a charm for me for many years! Seriously - and having been in the same position - I'd set yourself a goal. In AUD it's probably only around $1850 - that's 18 $100 jobs + loose change - setup an automatic payment from your pay for a small amount - have a good look around home and get a few auctions going on eBay - look for ways to earn extra money - I tend to look at it as being not a big amount - just a small series of little amounts. Working hard for it makes it seem all the more worthwhile when you get it. Others might disagree, but in my opinion, if you're serious then there is no substitute for this lens. I went from a kit lens that was nothing short of embarrasing to the 24-70 F2.8L - the sharpness is amasing. Many have argued the merits of kit lenses, but for me personally I was starting to wonder just what I was doing wrong - until I got that first L glass - then all of a sudden I can take a photo of a face - and see the individual pores in their skin - and individual eye lashes. There's no going back once you've tried L glass. I have a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L and also a Canon 17-40 f4 L. The one I use all the time now is the 17-40, it has many advantages over the 24-70 in areas such as weight, size and price. It goes wider than a 24-70 and at the long end it's nothing foot zooming can't correct. The only disadvantage is it's f4 but since it's so easy to bump up the ISO in a DSLR, it becomes a non issue. Jean > Really would like one but it is way over budget. > So does anyone have any experience with the alternatives [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > T.W. > Really would like one but it is way over budget. > So does anyone have any experience with the alternatives [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > T.W. I use the 24 -70 f2.8 from sigma with my Canon 20D, superb lens & if you want to see some quality proof, please email me & I can supply test photos for you. Regards |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.