Sigma lenses

I would get the 17-50mm bc it's faster overall and sharper at 17mm but ymmv. Here's some reviews:
http://www.lenstip.com/256.4-Lens_review-Sigma_17-50_mm_f_2.8_EX_DC_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/366.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_17-70_mm_f_2.8-4.0_DC_Macro_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/517-sigma1770f284osapsc?start=1

>>2974951
2.8 constant

>>2974951
17-70
Versatility is more important than lol bokeh, I'm sure you already have a nifty fifty for that purpose.

>>2974951
I would get the Tamron counterpart for the f/2.8 constant instead. Much much better build and optics

>>2974961
>nifty fifty
>on a crop
>it's not so nifty anymore
Why do Canon goons believe a 50mm on a crop is good for a generic walkaround lens?

I was going to say gear thread but this is perfect to exemplify /p/'s gearfaggotry and why bigger apperture is not always better.

I'd recommend the 17-70 for several reasons:

1. The focal length on apsc is basically a 24-105 on full frame, a great overall lens that will cover 90% of your needs. Those 24-105 are very commonly used by professionals (35mm sensors) and are fixed f4, so you have an even brighter lens than them on the wide half.
2. The aperture is 2.8 until 23mm, then remains at f3,5 until 50mm, and then changes to f4. That is only half a stop less that the 17-50 f2.8 during the same focal length, with still an extra reach until 70mm at only f4, which is still quite fast and a great apperture for portraits or indoor sports at 70mm (perfect compromise between light gathering and depth of field).
3. It's the closest thing to a macro lens, it focuses extremely close and since the sharpness up from f5.6 is astonishing you can crop a bit and get virtually the same results you'd get with a real, twice as expensive macro prime. Remember for macro you shoot at f/values of 11 to 16 to get more depth of field focusing that close.
4. The autofocus is as good as, if not better than in the 17-50.
5. Sigma's contemporary line is known for being very solidly built and with a great overall quality. Get the newer version and you won't be disappointed, whereas the 17-50hasn't been updated yet.

A bigger apperture is always a good thing to have, but for me half a stop is not enough to compensate for the lack of macro capabilities and the extra reach of that short tele.

Pick your poison mate.

My first Sigma lens was around 1996. broke after one year.

Second was for my a7000. 19mm. Broke within warranty, then broke again later.

Third was the 35mm ART. Broke with a Cankn mount, then had it switched to Sony. Broke after that, fixed it kne last time. Now it works ok.

The only equipment failures I had other than a shutter replacement on a 60 year old Leica

>>2974989
You're not supposed to USE your gear, you dingus, it's for looking great on a shelf.

>>2974961
>implying 27-80mm equivalent is not versatile

>>2974964
it's dirt cheap.
but 24mm 2.8 exist now.

>>2974965
it's 27-112mm equivalent. muh canun.

>>2974989
stop being a gorilla.

>>2975000
>implying 27-80 isnt versatile
Not compared to a 27-112, especially if you want nice bokeh on portraits. L

>>2975000
24/2.8 is a cheaply made piece of shit. The optics are fine but it's a shame they didn't design a better build for it, even from plastic.
Last time I tried that cheap plastic 35mm Pentax guys rave about at the local store. It felt much more solid than the 24mm Canon. I don't know why it is such a goddamn problem to actually do a decent job from plastic! Pentax could do it why can't Canon? Or Nikon if we're at it?

I'm not greedy, I just want a 24mm APS-C pancake with the Pentax plastic build, cheap and sturdy in Nikon mount...

>>2974965
Thank you for your review. It was really enlightening. I think that I'm gonna go for the 17-70.

>>2975000
I own the 24 pancake and it has horrid image quality. Like as bad as a 18-135 zoom kit lens even though it's a fixed prime.

The one and only upside is that since it's a tiny plastic turd I can slip it in my pocket for wide backup if I wanted to walk outside with only a 70-200mm attached to my body.

>>2975012
after researching both i got the 17-50mm/2.8
iirc there was an image quality factor that made the 17-50 better... i forget
it is a very good lens though, optically.

>>2975363
I have the plastic Pentax 35/2.4 and I keep it on me for the same reason. Except it's a bloody good lens. If you don't mind the sharp bokeh. Or the slight color fringing in the out of focus areas.
Lately I am mostly using the prime though and keeping the 70-200 in the bag if needed.

>>2975011
>24/2.8 is a cheaply made piece of shit
Because it's any worse than the 50 anyways?
>. I don't know why it is such a goddamn problem to actually do a decent job from plastic! Pentax could do it why can't Canon? Or Nikon if we're at it?
>Nikon
They did.

>tfw no 24mm DX prime to get my favourite focal length

>>2974951
the canon 15-85 is a good slow apertured walkabout lens, has the fov equivalent of a 24-105 on fool frame

I got mine used for 400 kangaroobux

>>2974951
Wait for Sigma to update the 17-50 to an Art lens.

File: 30mm-f14-KEN_2722.jpg (33KB, 460x478px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 460x478px

Sigma 20mm, f/1.4. I've had this lens for over a year and it's served me well. Got it for cheap, too.

HOWEVER, it has the single worst focus ring I've ever seen, felt, or even heard of. It's awful. Unforgivable, even. It's so stiff that I thought there was something wrong with it until I read up on it more and found out that was just how it was built. I have to actually fight the lens to manually focus, even a year after using it almost every day.

Is there any way to remedy this without buying another lens? Willing to take minor risks.

>>2979436
just get 18-35 1.8.

>>2979751
just use the af.