Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,757

    ANYONE have a Sigma 17-35mm EX DG

    good or bad?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Idaho!
    Posts
    175
    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.
    Jared

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,546
    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).
    Last edited by DonSchap; 03-08-2008 at 04:50 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,757
    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
    Last edited by SONYNUT; 01-11-2010 at 06:54 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,757
    little bending of reality but not bad..door test
    Last edited by SONYNUT; 01-11-2010 at 06:54 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Idaho!
    Posts
    175
    Did you pick this up from Cameta off Amazon?
    Jared

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,757
    cameta yes

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,546

    Red face Who listens ???

    Why do they ask? LOL

    Worse yet, why do I reply?

    I guess, all that is left to say ...

    "Trak ... PAW!"

    Name:  PAW.jpg
Views: 163
Size:  138.0 KB


    "That's my boy!"
    Last edited by DonSchap; 03-07-2008 at 05:46 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,757
    I Wasnt Worried About The 2.8 Anyway.lol...

    I Usually Go Long Exp. With A Tight Ap.for The Dof

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Idaho!
    Posts
    175
    People can listen to your advice Donn...... and still not take it.
    Jared

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •