sgireland

<p>I played with the new Tamron 17-50 VC and Sigma 17-50 HSM OS extensively and read a great deal about the Canon EF-S 17-55 and had some brief time with one.<br>

I went back and forth so much I posted about it <a href="http://sgireland.net/2011/04/2-8-standard-zooms-for-eos-apsc-cameras/">here.</a><br>

The VC version of the Tamron lens was very disappointing. I found it VERY soft at 2.8, particularly at 50mm and it didn't improve greatly until 5.6, I know that's not unusual for this type of lens but I found it incredibly soft. The noisy focus motor and loud image stabilization didn't help endear me to this lens.<br /> The Sigma on the other hand had much better image quality wide open. It was also faster and quieter to focus. Still has the wildly spinning focus ring like the Tamron but I learned to stay out of it's way. Build quality seemed much better and you get a nifty case for the lens.<br /> Here in Canada there is a big price difference between the Tamron VC and Sigma, but looking at U.S. based online dealers it's less than $50. Up here the Tamron streets for around $579 the Sigma around $829.<br /> The Canon seemed at least as sharp as the Sigma in my limited testing and was nicely built. I also appreciate the full time manual focus, but overall this lens didn't strike me as being worth over $1100. <br /> I finally bought a completely different lens, but that's another story.</p>

<p>I've been convinced of the benefits and have decided to go with the 7D. I really appreciate the well thought out responses I've received. Now I just need to save up for the 400mm f5.6L.<br>

Thanks, folks!</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. The 7D is readily available where I live and is even on sale at a local retailer. The cost difference is roughly 50% more for the 7D over the 60D. As one poster mentioned I will have to invest in CF cards as well. So about $575 more for the 7D and at least $100 for a decent CF card.<br>

The 60D seems to do everything I NEED, but the 7D has features that I WANT, primarily the better build, AF and burst, however I have to be realistic when deciding how much value I will get from upgrading. The cost difference is the same as a used 70-200 f4L which I was planning on buying.<br>

Still unsure.</p>

<p>Hi Folks,<br>

I am a previous Nikon D90 owner who has recently switched to Canon primarily to take advantage of lower cost tele primes like the 400mm 5.6L, as well as the improved video performance which is a new interest of mine.</p>

<p>I have JUST bought my 60D with the 50mm 1.8 so I have a 14 day period in which to exchange the camera with no penalty. I am considering the 7D as I understand it has superior autofocus and the more robust body is attractive. This would delay my purchase of better lenses somewhat, but not for more than a couple of months.</p>

<p>My photographic interests lie primarily in the area of birds/wildlife and portraiture. Would the superior autofocus and burst rate of the 7D be worth investing in? I would have to give up manual audio control and the articulating screen but these features on the 60D I could work around/live without.</p>

<p>Anything I have overlooked?</p>

<p>The Nikon 300mm f4 and 1.4x TC is a combo that would be comparable to the Canon 400mm f5.6 </p>

<p>It's possible, but you'll have to pay for a professional recovery service to do it. I have seen pretty miraculous results from Seagate and the like but it's usually a couple of hundred dollars. If you computer won't recognize it then it's down to taking apart the card and using hardware at this point.</p>

<p>I can't speak highly enough of the 16-85 lens. I went through a number of mid range zooms (so much that I am sure the local retailer was tired of seeing me) until I settled on the 16-85. What really sold me on it is the light weight, compact size, useful (for my shooting) room range and FAST autofocus. <br>

It teams very well with the D90 and I think I could happily shoot with this combo for the rest of my life. (with an SB-600).<br>

I suggest you also pick up the 1.8 35mm when funds allow as it will give you some low-light capability which the 16-85 lacks. I have the 1.8 50 but find the field of view a little narrow when I shoot indoors.<br>

Ya, I love the D90 and 16-85.</p>

 

<p>Check out the Canon ip4700. No scanner, no fax, just a good photo printer for around $100. High resolution, 4 inks for photo printing (uses a separate ink tank for text). As a bonus it will print directly on CD/DVD. For the money it's output quality is impressive. </p>

<p>Just thought I would follow up and know that I have decided to go with the Sigma 17-70 HSM (no OS). Though it's similar to the 18-50 2.8 I once owned I find the extra 20mm and the telephoto end to be more helpful as a walkaround lens and for low light I still have my Nikon 50mm 1.8</p>

<p>The price was right as well and I was able to pick up some other accessories while I was at it.</p>

<p>There were some great suggestions made and in reading them over I realized that my lens needs are fairly modest and there is much I can do with humble glass before I start buying really expensive stuff.</p>

<p>Thanks all!</p>

<p>Hi Folks,<br>

I currently own a D90 with 50mm 1.8, 85mm DX VR Micro and 70-300mm VR lenses. Obviously I have a hole in my focal length coverage below 50mm. The 85mm lens seems redundant in the line-up as I don't really use the macro feature as much as I thought I would and I am still within my return period on this lens having purchased it fairly recently.<br>

I am considering the following :<br>

Sigma 10-20mm<br>

Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX<br>

I had previously owned the Sigma 18-50mm EX HSM 2.8 but just didn't care for the lens at all. It was heavy with some focusing issues....I just never bonded with it.<br>

I seem to do most of my shooting with the 70-300mm (according to Lightroom) but I do feel the need to a wide to mid range option other than my 50mm 1.8<br>

The Nikon 35mm seems like a good choice for the money though I think the Sigma would be a blast to play around with. At almost twice the cost though I am wondering if I will get enough use out of it. <br>

The Nikon 16-85mm DX VR is an option but I hesitate to spend that much on a DX lens as I MAY upgrade to FX in the next couple of years.<br>

Ideally if I could start over I would go 10-20mm, 35mm, 50mm, 80-200 and eventually 300mm f4 with TC but that's a long way off. <br>

Where should I start moving towards this set-up if I have around $700 to play with including the $500 I have into the 85m micro?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

<p>You could push that USB connection to about 25 feet max, but might get some strange results. Look for an inexpensive USB repeater online to allow you to use a longer cable.<br>

What about using the ML-L3 remote to trigger your camera?</p>

<p>Haha! I will investigate further.</p>

<p>I shot 4 video clips on my D90 a week back and was able to view them on the camera and from the SD card when inserted in a laptop. The card is a Sandisk Ultra 8GB if that matters.<br>

I transferred the contents of the card to my computer via USB cable (using the camera as the reader) and then formatted the card in camera. I then noticed that one of the video files was showing in Windows Explorer as 0KB in size and would not play back.<br>

I have a very good undelete utility that I immediately ran on the SD card and could view and recover all files (both picture and video) except the one file that was now showing as 0KB on the computer. The undelete utility could not even find it.<br>

So I suspect it became corrupted on the card and not the computer. I am now wondering if I should no longer use this particular card or if this is just a random one time thing. <br>

Any insight?</p>

<p>I was considering a 80-200 f 2.8 lens (Sigma) or this 70-300mm VR Nikon. I went with the Nikon and used the left over funds to get myself an SB-600. My reasoning for going with the 70-300 is that I do most of my shooting in that zoom range outdoors during the day and didn't need the option of using a higher shutter speed as the 80-200 f 2.8 would allow. <br>

If you are going to be shooting in daylight the Nikon 70-300 will likely suit your needs but if you regular shoot a kids indoor hockey game or other indoor fast action the you may need the faster lens.</p>

<p>If you have created the restore disks I see no reason to keep the partition if you really need the space. With an 80gb drive it would be worth your while.<br>

If you keep regular backups and are running Windows XP turn of system restore to save yourself even more drive space.</p>

<p>The quick and dirty advice I give my customers looking for a laptop for photo editing....</p>

<p>1. 17" screen if you don't mind the hit you take in the portability department.<br>

2. As much RAM as you can afford, consider it a priority over a faster processor if it's one or the other.<br>

3. Hard drive space is a consideration but you should really have an external back-up solution anyways and shouldn't be using the laptop as the only means of storing your work. Laptops get stolen, lost, damaged too easily compared to a desktop.<br>

Don't forget to budget for software and the above mentioned external back-up drive.<br>

Brand-wise there are fans of every make and for each of them there is someone with a horror story about said brand. You'll pay more for a Toshiba or HP than you will for a similar ASUS or Acer. Usually what you are getting with the more expensive brands are nicer speakers, better finish on the case and other frills but under the hood things aren't that different.</p>

<p>I've been using the Sigma for a couple of days now and am quite pleased with it. Having only owned primes I really appreciate the 2.8 aperture of this lens. Image quality is good, a little soft at 18mm and wide open but still acceptable to me. Impressive build quality in the EX line. I'll be looking to Sigma again for my upcoming telephoto purchase.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback. I am going out shooting today and will spend some quality time with the Sigma. <br>

I think I am likely to stick with it as I can't really justify the extra cost of the 16-85 when I still want to get a telephoto down the road. <br>

Cheers!</p>

<p>I recently purchased the above mentioned lens for my D90 as I have been getting by with just the Nikon 50mm 1.8 for the last couple of months.<br>

<br /> It was purchased mostly on a whim but I get 21 days of exchange privileges with my local dealer so I can always get something else.</p>

<p>There have been favorable reviews posted about this lens in comparison to the 17-50 Tamron (which I cannot obtain locally) and some where the Tamron beats it hands down in terms of image quality. It seems the Sigma does not compare favorably to the Nikon 16-85mm.<br>

<br /> Time and time again I read that no "pro" would use a third party lens and that they cannot possibly equal a Nikkor. Is this true? I could stretch financially to get the 16-85 and it would be nice to get the extra reach but if that is the only advantage it has over the Sigma I would rather save the money.</p>

<p>I understand that I am comparing a fixed aperture lens to one that is variable but with VR and the fact I would be shooting mostly out of doors is it even an issue?</p>

<p>Finally, does anyone know if the HSM version of the 18-50mm Sigma is optically different from the original version? The Sigma website references Low Dispersion and Extraordinary Low Dispersion glass being used in the HSM version and does not mention these in the write-up of the standard lens.<br /> Thanks!</p>

<p>Windows Picture and Fax viewer does not seem to automatically rotate the tagged photos though when I view in Lightroom they are rotated properly. I have a feeling this has less to do with how you are importing your photos and more to do with the default Windows viewer.</p>