Looking for new lens

[fausto66]

mmmm such a dillema lol well thx all ill have to decide i guess

 

[Goontz]

I would go with tamron over sigma in almost all focal lengths. The glass is just better than sigma

:scratch:

mmmm such a dillema lol well thx all ill have to decide i guess

Google both, and do a search on here. Find some articles, comparisons, reviews, whatever. Decide which you think would be best for you. I doubt that you'll be disappointed with either.

 

[potownrob]

I think Tamron now has one available with VR (VC, IS, whatever you want to call it), but I don't think that's as important in this zoom range. I haven't missed having it yet with my lens.

I wish I had VC or whatever it's called on my 17-50, but I'm the nocturnal one trying to shoot cars and buildings in the middle of the night

 

[fausto66]

yepper and thx gonna do some more reading on both

 

[potownrob]

If you're shooting kids running around a lot, the VC or OS or VR won't help as much as you might expect, since the VR doesn't help you to freeze motion by allowing a faster shutter speed. VR helps steady shots taken at slower shutter speeds but it can't stop the subjects in the shot from moving around :meh:. I still think having the VR on top of the f/2.8 is deluxe, especially for shooting still subjects.

 

[Goontz]

Good luck. Again, I seriously doubt you'll be disappointed with either. I seriously don't think my Sigma has come off my camera since I got it a few weeks ago

 

[potownrob]

Good luck. Again, I seriously doubt you'll be disappointed with either. I seriously don't think my Sigma has come off my camera since I got it a few weeks ago

and why would it have to come off, unless you needed to switch to a telephoto or ultra wide angle lens...:thumbup:

 

[Goontz]

Exactly. I haven't been shooting much at all lately, and definitely not anything I needed to get up to 200mm for.

 

[fausto66]

im liking the tamron i think sigma is good but for my needs i think its gonna be the tamron thx again

 

[icassell]

I've seen the non-VC version of the tamron selling on the used market in the $300-350 range.

 

[fausto66]

well i think im gonna save my pennies and get the nikon 17-55 2.8 oh well lol thx all

 

[grafxman]

i was wondering if you all had any opinions of the aigma 17-70 2.8 lens im a novice family sports pohotgrpaher for the family nothing serious was looking for input on it

All the images here:

Starship Farragut - a set on Flickr

were shot with my Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro. It was on my Canon 50D. I've since replaced it with the Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM. There was nothing wrong with the lens, it's just that I've become very enamored with OS lenses after getting my Sigma 150-500mm.

 

[potownrob]

i was wondering if you all had any opinions of the aigma 17-70 2.8 lens im a novice family sports pohotgrpaher for the family nothing serious was looking for input on it

...

well i think im gonna save my pennies and get the nikon 17-55 2.8 oh well lol thx all

hmmmm...:scratch:

 

[fausto66]

well im gettin the tamron not the nikon i cant spend that much money yet lol tamron looks like it will be a good option....plus i like the vc in it

 

[potownrob]

good choice!! and don't believe the reviews saying it's not built well - it may not be built like a more expensive pro lens but it's definitely more solid than the kit 18-55 and 55-200 lenses. i did read about the VC version not being as sharp as the non-VC version, but keep in mind the non-VC version is VERY sharp.