Opting for Sigma. But, how does this lens compare to the 18-35mm 1.8? Need a walkaround lens. Currently own a 50mm 1.4, 11-16mm 2.8, 70-300m 4.5-5.6.
1732814
Not sure what kit you have. I have Pentax. From what I read, and judging by the price, the 18-35 1.8 may be better, but the 17-70 has a longer reach which comes in handy for a walkaround lens. I have the Pentax FA 50 1.4 prime, and the Sigma can match it at 50mm, so long as there is enough light and you can shoot faster than say 1/20. I have almost retired my 35mm 2.4, 40mm2.8 and 50mm 1.4 primes since I got the sigma, since I have on the Pentax K3 most of the time. Of course I will use the primes under certain conditions, but for a walkaround, the sigma does an excellent job. I considered the 18-35mm, but since I already have this one, I will be interested if the improve IQ is worth the extra money, since the 17-70 has the extra reach.
537013
TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the cards too. TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the... » Read More TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the cards too. « Show Less
632572
I own the 18-250mm and it is really sharp and a good lens. I was very surprised. Not sure of the Sigma but I know with the Tamron it is a bargain at that price.
2152800
Great，I use the sigma 30mm f2.8 lens, it's just approximate 1 pound. I bought it cost $449 with 18-55 and sigma 30mm lens is 120 dollar~
86637
Depends on what you are going to use it for. I have the 1.8 50mm and the 1.4 85. The 85 1.4 has much more versatility for portraits and can create amazing blur beyond what the 1.8 can. It also allows for a faster shutter when shooting portraits of young kids(which helps with movement). Lastly, it is an amazing macro lens, but unless you are really into that, the 1.8 is sufficient in my humble opinion
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
1787338
Any thoughts for general / home photography? I have a Digital Rebel XSI and recently bought the 70-200 mm F2.8 IS version mainly to photograph school events without the annoying flash, and take closeups of my rapidly-growing kids. I have been going back and forth between the two lenses (24-70 F2.8 vs. 24-105 F4.0 IS) but my instinct is that F2.8 is much better than F 4 even with IS. Any guidance appreciated from a professional.
1028371
This is a great lens, but sports is not really it's thing. Out it might do alright. Sigma has always been the winner for sports, either the 50-150 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8. Don't just take my word for it. Look at the Pentax forums website under the tab lens database. Real helpful reviews.
2251843
Image quality is good ...but not better than my Pentax 55-300mm and 17- 70mm Lens, changing lenses is not easy in outdoor photography....so the Sigma 18-250 is very useful.
410989
Thanks for the information. I was using a Canon 28-135 IS USM as my walk around travel lens and loved it until it got stolen in an airport! :-( Now I'm in the market for a new lens and I'm leaning towards the Tamron. I've used their lens in my past photography life with my old AE-1 Program and I'd LOVE the 18-270 if I can swing the $$$. I'm hunting eBay as well, as that's where I got my 28-135 and had NO problems with it at all!
543320
I had the 1.8 and switched to the sigma and LOVE IT!! My pictures are more colorful and sharper plus I love the depth of field!!!
987142
I owned the 50D and now own a 7D. I have had my 17-55 f/1.8 IS for over 2 years. I bought the 24-105 a year ago to replace my 17-55 hahaha yea let me say right now I am not selling my 17-55 and when shooting indoors the 17-55 f/2.8 is will be my first choice over the 24-105 f/4 IS. Indoors f/4 is slow period. I ended up buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to shoot indoors for low light and I LOVE it. Anyways on a crop body I would pick the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS for indoors unless its a really well lit room or I am using my 580 EXII. I am leaning to primes anymore and would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 for you. Another option is Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8 and you spend less then either of those lenses heck you can throw in a 50 f/1.8 and have 3 lenses for the price of 1 if you don't mind switching lenses. Nick
2251841
I do own a 18-50mm on my Rebel.. and this one is for my Nikon... But I really can't distinguish any differences since I am pretty new to the hobby. But I find it very easy now to just have one lens on all the time .. with my canon I would always have to keep changing from my 15-50mm to my zoom lens a lot and it takes too much time plus you have to carry another lens with you. So far so good.. its a really awesome lens.. and all my friends think its cool!
943019
I have used the 17-55 canon and own the Sigma 17-50, use it all the time, very sharp! You will love it, it is my walk around lens.
1078335
The 50mm 1.4 is great for indoor low-light portraiture, unless you are shooting groups of people -- you may not have enough space to step back. Lately I've been using the 85mm 1.8 more. The extra length does a better job of blurring the background at shorter distances, which helps isolate the subject further. Indoors it's great for tight crops of faces and outdoors I mostly use it for candid shots while street walking. One thing to keep in mind though, the longer focal range requires you to shoot at a relatively faster shutter speed, which makes it tougher to hand hold in dim light. I've considered upgrading to the 85mm 1.4, although that opens up a whole new can of worms... long story short, most feel the 1.8 is better bang for the buck, while the rest are convinced that the 1.4 is legendary. (For what it's worth, I'm using these lenses on a D90, APS-C)
155655
Love my Sigma. It is fantastic lens for the money. If video is a requirement, I recommend the Sony. The OSS makes for much better video. BTW - when I shoot video, I change to 16-50 lens with OSS.
1594405
I have never used the 11-16 but did research it before buying this lens. I think you will be quite happy with either one and can't really go wrong. They are both sharp, excellent lenses. In my mind the principal trade off is whether you want a slightly wider angle view (there really is a pretty big difference btwn 12mm and 11mm) and a wider aperture or whether you want the extra versatility on the other end since the 12-28 lens goes up to 28mm. Pics are definitely usable at 28mm in my opinion. Ken Rockwell has a great review of both. The only thing I don't agree with him on with regards to the 12-28mm is that I am noticing some CA that I have to remove in post processing (not a big deal to me but worth noting). I will try to post a few sample pics later today. Hope that helps and happy shooting!