Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Get me by lens

  1. #1
    New member reuben_j_cogburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    285

    Default Get me by lens

    Okay.... here's one for ya. I want to get a 17ish mm to ??mm lens for my digital.
    I'm still in my money crunch so I know I can't afford top dollar. I would also like the lens to function on my film camera's if possible.
    Any of you guy's shoot and intermediate priced lens like this? I know it won't be as sharp at as many apertures as the high buck glass and it will have more distortion. But if any of you are using a lens like this in the $200-$350 range let me know what you think of it...and maybe post a pic?
    I would like to get something but don't want to buy a total dog.....
    Thanks y'all...


    reuben....

  2. #2

    Default canon 20-35mm

    I know its not the 17ish that you want but i picked up a new Canon USM 20-35 with lens shade for $150 a week ago. So far very nice. I figured that with that zoom range i wasnt going to shoot to much at f2.8 so why spend the extra $1000.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    $439.00 can get you the outstanding Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical lens. However, it won't work on film cameras, just digital. Sigma also has some outstanding lenses in that range (17-50mm or so), and cost about the same. You may be able to buy a second-hand Tamron or Sigma for around $300.00.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Hmmm, too late. I sold a Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 last week for $200 with Canon EOS 5 (A2e) attached. Pittiful pittance, it was. -- I was robbed!

    I used to own a Phoenix/Cosina/Vivitar/Tokina (take your pick, they are all the same for this lens) 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 before I wasted my money on the Sigma, thinking it was better. It wasn't. Anyway, those go cheap on eBay, and some what surprisingly, are not bad optically.

  5. #5
    Member Hunt'N'Photos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    I will second Jims recomendation on the 19-35. I had the vivitar version of that lens years ago. I think I picked it up for $75 used and to this day I still sell shots with that lens. I have a $1300 Canon 16-35 now and I will fully admit that the difference in price is not in line with the difference in quality. Although it was not near as solid as the L lens, the vivitar took very surprisingly good images! Don't count that one out by any means.
    US Air Force - retired and Wildlife photographer

    To follow my photography adventures check out my facebook page

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    Remember,
    Unless the sensor in your digital camera is "full frame" the lense will not be as "wide" as you think it is compared against a film body.
    Tennessee

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowwolfe View Post
    Remember,
    Unless the sensor in your digital camera is "full frame" the lense will not be as "wide" as you think it is compared against a film body.
    That's true, and something to keep in mind before buying a lens. The Tamrom 17-50mm I mentioned above, as well as most similar size Sigma lenses are made for cameras with smaller sensors.

  8. #8
    New member reuben_j_cogburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    285

    Default understood

    I understand.
    That is why I'm looking for something in the 17ish mm. I want a 28mm (sort of) equivelant for my digital.
    What do you guys use in the $400.00 ballpark? What do you like about it? Dislike?.......
    My 28-105 F2.8 Tamron is great but just not wide enough on the digital...



    reuben....

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    I used to have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Optically, it was great except near the edges at 18mm. Stopping down helped but didn't quite cure the problem. I understand that Sigma's latest version (the one with "macro" in it's name) is better in this regard. But my issue with it was inconsistent focus accuracy. Mostly this only happened in low light, but sometimes it would front focus a bit, and other times it would back focus. I've read a number of internet forums where others have acomplained about focusing issues with all of Sigma's normal length zooms, so perhaps it is a brand issue. I've read a few complaints about Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 doing the same, but far fewer. I replaced mine with Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but if you want to keep the cost down, I'd go with the Tamron.

    If it weren't for the focusing problem Sigma's 17-70 would be another option. Also, if you raised the available funds limit the choices might expand.

    Note that none of these are usable on a full frame or film camera.

  10. #10

    Default

    Hi Guys
    I have two Sigma lenses: the 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX APO DG HSM, and the 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO, which I use on an EOS-20D. The focusing is reasonably quick and spot on with both of them. My only complaint (not really complaining...I'm actually pretty happy with both) is the "Bigma" is a little slow in low light, which makes the shutter speed slow...which in turn can lead to blurry pics if trying to hold by hand. (there are occasions where there is simply no time to set up a tripod...but I do use one when I can) And the other lens is just not wide enough...might be ok with a film camera, but not with a digital. I have a feeling the focusing problems some have experienced are not so much a problem or fault of the lens as it is a compatability issue with some cameras. Some have said you can take the same "bad" lens and put it on a different camera, and it works just fine. (?) My suggestion: borrow one of these lens from a friend and try it on your camera first. I believe all of the current crop of Sigmas (last couple of years) will work fine with the 20D...I have no experience to speak of with other cameras though.
    I agree that something starting around 17-18mm would be better for a digital...but I just can't do it at the moment...spending most of our cash building a small house. (I suggested a nice, shiny, brand-new teepee to the wife, and a half-dozen new L-series lenses for me, as well as the latest state-of-the-art hi-tech camera, but for some reason she didn't go for it...)
    But Christmas is special, doggonit! I'm gonna DEMAND a new lens!

    Marshall
    Seward

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reuben_j_cogburn View Post
    I understand.
    That is why I'm looking for something in the 17ish mm. I want a 28mm (sort of) equivelant for my digital.
    What do you guys use in the $400.00 ballpark? What do you like about it? Dislike?.......
    My 28-105 F2.8 Tamron is great but just not wide enough on the digital...



    reuben....
    Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 should cost from $300.00 to $400.00 at B&H, but you want to ask Doug at Cameral Land (he sponsors this forum). He is pretty good keeping the cost down.

    I haven't had a single problem with my Tamrom. Its motor is little noisy, but real fast focusing, so the noise is produced in very short periods of time that are easy to get use to. I posted this photo before, and it shows how sharp it is. I didn't do any PhotoShop sharpening. All was done by the lens and the camera (Rebel XT).

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Forgot to mention: The photo above is not zoomed and then cropped. It's posted just as I took it, except for "auto adjust" for lighting, contrast, and color with Elements.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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