View Full Version : ANYONE have a Sigma 17-35mm EX DG
03-05-2008, 05:54 PM
good or bad?
03-05-2008, 09:46 PM
It has mixed reviews over at fred miranda's site and photozone has not reviewed it. It's attractive to me at the present time as well considering it is one of the 'Cameta Deals' now over at Amazon. $219 for an EX quality lens with HSM is a great deal.
03-06-2008, 06:56 AM
TAMRON has a nearly identical lenses in their line-up. It was originally released for film cameras, as a wide angle zoom ... but I found that f/2.8~4 variable-aperture unattractive in light of the, then, newly released 17-50mm f/2.8. It had more stretch and a great maximum aperture throughout its zoom range to boot. So, that's where my money wound up. The problem being that the f/2.8 aperture doesn't last very long, as you zoom in. As I recall, from 17-20mm, then it climbs to f/3.5 and f/4 at around 28mm on up.
I suppose if you are planning to get the A900, it would be "looking ahead" ... as the 17-50mm f/2.8 is a Di-II (designed for use on APS-C sensors) lens, while the 17-35mm f/2.8~4 is a Di (designed to work with full-frame/35mm-film).
03-06-2008, 05:33 PM
well i picked one up..little disappointed that it seems to be mostly plastic...it is 14 oz instead of the 21 oz as advertised..but it does the job..good enough for real estate pics that will be so damn small on a website anyway..lol
here is my first blinded victim...you will have to run a higher flash though..(see shadow) but thats no biggy
03-06-2008, 05:34 PM
little bending of reality but not bad..door test
03-06-2008, 06:27 PM
Did you pick this up from Cameta off Amazon?
03-06-2008, 07:12 PM
03-06-2008, 08:40 PM
Why do they ask? LOL
Worse yet, why do I reply?
I guess, all that is left to say ...
"Trak ... PAW!"
"That's my boy!"
03-07-2008, 12:07 AM
I Wasnt Worried About The 2.8 Anyway.lol...
I Usually Go Long Exp. With A Tight Ap.for The Dof
03-08-2008, 11:41 AM
People can listen to your advice Donn...... and still not take it.
03-08-2008, 05:48 PM
True ... personally, I saw no future with the 17-35mm f/2.8-4 with APS-C sensors ... but, again, with the A900 coming ... it burns bright, once more. Now, all you need is that multi-thousand dollar camera .. and you are all set.
How short-sighted I have become, these days. Hmmm ... need a vacation. Think I'll take that 17-50, along.
03-29-2008, 04:52 PM
Artistic question: What is the subject? Is this an environmental image?
I am trying to get the feel of what it is that we are being asked to look at. I want to see what you are seeing.
04-01-2008, 02:28 PM
Was it backing up? There's no headlight! Or was it coming from the reverse direction?
Just a developmental footnote I have picked up over the past few years: One of the things I look to see in my images is "the subject." Whatever it is, I know it should be clearly conveyed, if I photographed (framed, focused & exposed) it properly. I'm not saying I'm always successful at this. In fact, that's the challenge to the artform, in my book. If I have done it properly, no one usually asks, "What's this?"
Just a thought from ... the "Dark Side."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2015 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.