maybe going to sigma lenses.......

[kellyphillips]

I've got myself in a mess again. I need some new lenses. I have the canon 24-

105 L is, 75-300mm, 50mm 1.8, and 18-55mm kit. I'm shooting with a 40D. I know

I will be getting a 70-200 f/2.8 non IS soon. That lens makes the most sense

for my work. I shoot sports, portraits, and general p journalism stuff. I am

considering selling or trading the 24-105 for sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and a sigma 10-

20mm. I love the 10-20. I have tried that out. I love the pictures that it

makes. The 24-70, I don't know so much about. I have heard that it is almost on

par with canon's 24-70 L. I can't verify that. I hope someone can. I understand

that you get what you pay for, and the canon v/s sigma is $1139 v/s $429. So

how does this sound? 1: Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, 2: Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, and

3: Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS, with extender if needed. I can do without the

24-105 if I have those others. Anyone use this lineup? Also, anyone need a 24-

105?

 

 

Forgot to say, I am also getting the canon 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and

basketball.

I will use the 70-200 for baseball and football although I know it's very

short. I can't afford anything else right now and I need an all purpose fast,

long lens for basketball, baseball, football, and volleyball.

 

Thanks

Kelly<div></div>

[bosshogg]

The only thing I can say is that I use the Sigma 10-20 on my Nikon D200, and it is a damn good lens. I don't think I lose anything in quality from the Nikon 70-200, which is my other major lens for the D200. Individual results may differ.

[kellyphillips]

Yeah, I don't see any problem with the 10-20mm. Seems like a great lens. I'm kind of worried about the 24-70 (sigma). I've been reading about it tonight and it looks like some people have softness issues wide open.

[bosshogg]

That specific lens I am not familiar with. I have had two other Sigma lenses over the years, and was most pleased with them. And, I'm a Nikon guy when it comes to equipment.

[mr. sullen]

Why don't you email me baby? I swear you are talking like I am feeling it's creepy. I just bought the D300 and the 50mm 1.4 for shooting indoor sports. I have found that in most indoor spots even this is hardly sufficient. I would love the D3 or the EOS-1Ds Mark III but you know that whole money thing. Which reminds me of the goofballs who love to protest it's not about the gear.

 

 

I have mostly Sigma lenses and was thinking of giving most of them up for the praised Nikon 70-200. I have the 70-200 macro Sigma which is great but when hooked up to the 2x tc is a bit soft. I also have the Sigma 105 macro and 14mm both of which I love. Now if you can tell me how your making money with your sports shots I will tell you more, lol. Shay- Email me huh? I have a lot more sports shots which I don't show on here.

[savagesax]

Also look at trade in value. 3rd party lenses do not attract as much money for trade ins or selling them used. Canon lenses, on the other hand sell fast and hold their value a lot better. Often there are rebates so keep an eye out for canon rebates.

[colin carron]

It is like the difference between a Ford and a Mercedes (or any other luxury car). They both do the same thing but the Merc may be alittle better here and there. In addition it has more street cred and you notive the difference when you resell. But the Ford may well do all you will ever need in terms of A to B.

 

The Sigma 24-70 EX is not at all bad and good value for money. The optical differences will not become apparent (assuming good copies of both lenses) under most circumstances. The handling and feel of the Canon are the areas where the differences show. And of corse resale value.

[jmichael]

Shay, I hope you find what will work for you. Signed, Goofball.

[jmichael]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ODKc

[marc_bergman1]

You can find a test of the Sigma 24-70mm zoom on a Canon DSLR here.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/318-sigma-af-24-70mm-f28-ex-dg-macro-canon-lab-test-report--review"> Photozone Test</a>

<p>

He makes a good point as to the usefulness of this lens on an APS-C DSLR. He also tests the other lenses on your wish list.

<p>

[JDMvW]

The only one I have experience with is the Sigma 10-20mm and I am very pleased with it. With some vignetting, it even mounts and works on the full-frame cameras (at least the old film ones).

 

It has some barrel distortion, but this is noticeable to me only at the extreme edges at 10mm.

[ayash_basu1]

I was debating for a long time between the Nikon 12-24mm and the Sigma 10-20mm. Given the price difference, I finally decided to go with the Sigma 10-20mm and must say have been very pleased with the results. The lens is tack sharp with very acceptable chromatic aberration. There is slight distortion in the edges at 10mm but between 12mm and 20mm, the lens works exceedingly well. The lens cap is a problem, not designed well but other than that this is an awesome lens.