Sigma lens

hmcfly · 12-18-2006, 07:31 AM

I've been looking for a sigma 17-70 f2.8 4.5 and found a 24-70 f2.8.
I'm a bit confused is it better to have a straight f-stop on one or one that that will change like the one from 2.8-4.5. Im looking for a walk around lens to take landscape and people and all things.

Thank for any help.

**jfdavis58** · 12-18-2006, 09:27 AM

Depends on budget and end use. The constant f/2.8 lens is more expensive but gives a couple stops more exposure range at the long end--a real plus for shots like those in sports or when low light shooting.

In addition to cost, they typically weigh considerably more. Some might argue that the constant f-stop lens is also better made.

What works for your needs is what is best for you.

RussellW · 12-18-2006, 03:10 PM

I have been using the 24 - 70 f2.8 for the past 12 months on a DS, with great results. only issue is that you can't use the oboard flash with this lens, as it porduces a shadow on the bottom of the picture.

roy · 12-19-2006, 07:04 AM

there's also a world of difference between 17mm and 24mm. if doing landscapes i think you would probably like the 17-70 for it's wider advantage.

egordon99 · 12-19-2006, 10:58 AM

Easy - If you need f/2.8 at 70mm, get the 24-70mm. If you need 17mm, get the 17-70. If you need 17mm and f/2.8 at the long end, doah! That's one of the trade offs in life. I just got the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I love it! I still have the kit lens for the wide angle. I have no problem changing lenses often. It's part of the fun of DSLRs

slip · 12-19-2006, 02:46 PM

I bought the 17-70 after a long struggle on which lens to buy. I think it is a great lens so far, but if you want to do indoor work with no flash, I would encourage you to go for the 2.8 constant. You can hand hold the 17-70 in indoor shots and still get a sharp photo, but if your subject move even a little bit they will either very soft or completely blurry, depending on the light.
If you don't need the lens for this, then I would get the 17-70 for a walk around lens as it is more versitile, a bit cheaper, and sharp. At 70mm it makes a great candid portriat lens. (I ran out of money so that was also a major factor in my decision not to go for the 2.8)
what I am eventually going to do is get a pentax 77mm limited or a 50mm prime to use for no flash indoor work.

good luck

randy

12-18-2006, 07:31 AM	#1
hmcfly Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Bloomington Ca. Posts: 84	Sigma lens I've been looking for a sigma 17-70 f2.8 4.5 and found a 24-70 f2.8. I'm a bit confused is it better to have a straight f-stop on one or one that that will change like the one from 2.8-4.5. Im looking for a walk around lens to take landscape and people and all things. Thank for any help.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma lens vs. Tamron lens	luke0622	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	01-08-2010 10:25 PM
Sigma Lens question	eccs19	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	12-27-2009 05:18 PM
Sigma lens monickers ?	Pentaxor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	12-09-2009 12:31 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax k-2000 + kit lens (18-55) + sigma zoom lens 70-300mm	dexmus	Sold Items	6	11-09-2009 05:25 PM
Sigma lens, OneStop Digital customer service, Sigma again	vytas	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	10-30-2008 03:23 PM

12-18-2006, 09:27 AM	#2
jfdavis58 Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 13 S 0357397-3884316 Photos: Gallery Posts: 887	Depends on budget and end use. The constant f/2.8 lens is more expensive but gives a couple stops more exposure range at the long end--a real plus for shots like those in sports or when low light shooting. In addition to cost, they typically weigh considerably more. Some might argue that the constant f-stop lens is also better made. What works for your needs is what is best for you.

12-18-2006, 03:10 PM	#3
RussellW Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 198	I have been using the 24 - 70 f2.8 for the past 12 months on a DS, with great results. only issue is that you can't use the oboard flash with this lens, as it porduces a shadow on the bottom of the picture.

12-19-2006, 07:04 AM	#4
roy Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: D/FW area, Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,710	there's also a world of difference between 17mm and 24mm. if doing landscapes i think you would probably like the 17-70 for it's wider advantage.

12-19-2006, 10:58 AM	#5
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Easy - If you need f/2.8 at 70mm, get the 24-70mm. If you need 17mm, get the 17-70. If you need 17mm and f/2.8 at the long end, doah! That's one of the trade offs in life. I just got the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I love it! I still have the kit lens for the wide angle. I have no problem changing lenses often. It's part of the fun of DSLRs

12-19-2006, 02:46 PM	#6
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	I bought the 17-70 after a long struggle on which lens to buy. I think it is a great lens so far, but if you want to do indoor work with no flash, I would encourage you to go for the 2.8 constant. You can hand hold the 17-70 in indoor shots and still get a sharp photo, but if your subject move even a little bit they will either very soft or completely blurry, depending on the light. If you don't need the lens for this, then I would get the 17-70 for a walk around lens as it is more versitile, a bit cheaper, and sharp. At 70mm it makes a great candid portriat lens. (I ran out of money so that was also a major factor in my decision not to go for the 2.8) what I am eventually going to do is get a pentax 77mm limited or a 50mm prime to use for no flash indoor work. good luck randy