Going to go to full frame. Hate to give up my Sigma 17-50

SiaoP wrote in post #15268031
When you go to full frame I recommend you get rid of the low end glass and start investing in better lenses. Depends on what you want really badly (FF or good lenses), I'd recommend lenses first though.

Yeah but the OP already thinks the 24-105 is expensive. He/she will need something to shot with in the meantime and from what I've seen in the Archive the 24-105 is actually a pretty decent lens.

Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #15268023
I used to feel that way too but it actually seems like a really good deal once you have it in your hands. The build quality is excellent and the range is perfect for general purpose use. Seems more like a good value L lens rather than just a kit lens to me now.

True. Our photographer at work uses it primarily and I've messed with it a little bit. It does feel like a great piece of hardware, so I'm sure it's fully worth the price. Just need to convince my wife of that now...

SiaoP wrote in post #15268031
When you go to full frame I recommend you get rid of the low end glass and start investing in better lenses. Depends on what you want really badly (FF or good lenses), I'd recommend lenses first though.

I ask to not be argumentative, but curious. Are you saying you don't think that Sigma or Tamron makes quality lenses? I'm an amateur at best, but it was my impression that for the Sigma 17-50 (that I use for most everything) was a really great lens and produces results equal to, if not better than the Canon 17-55 which is like twice the price. I realize that there are some QA issues that you can get into with 3rd party lenses, but for me, my Sigma has been fantastic. Just curious on your thoughts as to what makes a lens low end vs high end. Are we basing this based on if the lens has a red ring and an "L" after the name?

the 24-105 is a clear step up from the sigma 17-50 crop combination. Any 24-70 2.8 will be a fairly large step up from the sigma. I went from the sigma 17-50 to full frame, and everything was better, including the lowly 28-75 tamron.

you realize that if you want to emulate the 50mm end of your 17-50 on a FF camera, you'll need something longer...

I think you should upgrade your lenses first before going to a FF camera...get at least a prime or two...

deronsizemore wrote in post #15267624
I've heard good things about the Sigma 50 1.4. I'd likely go for the Canon simply for size and price though. Might give both a try, but unless completely blown away by the Sigma, I can't see paying the extra money.

In this case you would be. I havent tried the 50L, but lot of folks here saying that the Sigmalux is on par with that (except of 1.2). I would believe it as that lens is simply amazing, well worth the money! If you decide to go with something cheaper, go with 50 1.8 mark 1. I have tried both and the mark 2 doesnt simply cut it - very frustrating lens!

Charlie wrote in post #15268285
the 24-105 is a clear step up from the sigma 17-50 crop combination. Any 24-70 2.8 will be a fairly large step up from the sigma. I went from the sigma 17-50 to full frame, and everything was better, including the lowly 28-75 tamron.

Thanks! So you're saying that it was "better" because of the full frame sensor then? Or was it build quality of the lens, etc., that made it a big step up from the Sigma 17-50? Would you say the results of the 24-105 on your crop would have been significantly better than your 17-50 on your crop? If so, how?

Thanks again. The Tamron 28-75 has my interest for sure. Good price and results I've seen look pretty amazing for my needs.

DreDaze wrote in post #15268294
you realize that if you want to emulate the 50mm end of your 17-50 on a FF camera, you'll need something longer...

I think you should upgrade your lenses first before going to a FF camera...get at least a prime or two...

Yeah, I realize that. Doesn't need to be an exact equivalent to what I have now, just looking for a mid-range zoom that can cover a little more ground than say a single prime could. I realize I can always zoom in/out with my feet with a prime, but sometimes that's not always an option indoors. I'm an enthusiast at best and mainly take photos of my daughter and capture family trips. It's hard to justify going out and spending thousands on glass when that's mainly what I use it for, but I do understand your point.

lomenak wrote in post #15268329
In this case you would be. I havent tried the 50L, but lot of folks here saying that the Sigmalux is on par with that (except of 1.2). I would believe it as that lens is simply amazing, well worth the money! If you decide to go with something cheaper, go with 50 1.8 mark 1. I have tried both and the mark 2 doesnt simply cut it - very frustrating lens!

Dammit! Now I'm gonna have to go try the Sigma.

Thanks for the advice on the 50 1.8. I actually didn't realize there was a Mark 1 version. It appears to be better built (based on pictures alone). My first lens was the 50 1.8 II and while it produced good results, it was cheaply build. I guess for $100, you can't complain though. When I used the 50 1.8, I knew next to nothing about photography or how to use it, so I think I could get better results now with it than I could back then.

deronsizemore wrote in post #15268338
I'm an enthusiast at best and mainly take photos of my daughter and capture family trips.

How old is your daughter? If you want something to keep up with a "can't sit still" child in the auto focus category, the Tamron 28-75 will leave you frustrated at best with its slow AF. The IQ is great on it, but its not something I would want to use with kids.

I wouldn't make the move to full frame unless you afford to get a kit 24-105 minimum with it.

FEChariot wrote in post #15268363
How old is your daughter? If you want something to keep up with a "can't sit still" child in the auto focus category, the Tamron 28-75 will leave you frustrated at best with its slow AF. The IQ is great on it, but its not something I would want to use with kids.

I wouldn't make the move to full frame unless you afford to get a kit 24-105 minimum with it.

She's two and a half. So yeah, she's at the "can't sit still" age.

Thanks for the advice. I was reading about the slow AF on the Tamron. Everything looks good about it but that.

As for the 24-105 with it being a constant F4 and likely having to stop down to get the best results, wouldn't this leave me with some less than desirable results as well with the slower shutter speed? I suppose I'd have to bump the ISO up a fair amount? Or just improve my skills with a flash? Outdoors wouldn't be an issue, but I'm thinking more indoors at Holiday time.

deronsizemore wrote in post #15268382
She's two and a half. So yeah, she's at the "can't sit still" age.

Thanks for the advice. I was reading about the slow AF on the Tamron. Everything looks good about it but that.

As for the 24-105 with it being a constant F4 and likely having to stop down to get the best results, wouldn't this leave me with some less than desirable results as well with the slower shutter speed? I suppose I'd have to bump the ISO up a fair amount? Or just improve my skills with a flash? Outdoors wouldn't be an issue, but I'm thinking more indoors at Holiday time.

Unless you are going to get the 5Dc, the 5D2 and 5D3 and probably the 6D will all have at least a stop better ISO performance than any 1.6 crop camera, so going to F4 from 2.8 isn't really going to cost you anything. Also from a DOF point of view, the f4 on full frame will look like a f2.5 on crop, so you are not loosing anything there either.

I personally get great results with my 24-105 wide open using my 7D. Its not quit as sharp as my Sigma 17-50, but with a better FF sensor, I am sure you will come out ahead in IQ.

FEChariot wrote in post #15268531
Unless you are going to get the 5Dc, the 5D2 and 5D3 and probably the 6D will all have at least a stop better ISO performance than any 1.6 crop camera, so going to F4 from 2.8 isn't really going to cost you anything. Also from a DOF point of view, the f4 on full frame will look like a f2.5 on crop, so you are not loosing anything there either.

I personally get great results with my 24-105 wide open using my 7D. Its not quit as sharp as my Sigma 17-50, but with a better FF sensor, I am sure you will come out ahead in IQ.

Thank you. I'm wanting to get the 5DMII, so it sounds like it would be a great with the 24-105. What I will probably end up doing is just getting the camera body and then renting a lens or two and trying them out. Might even go down to my local camera store to try as many as I can and decide.

If you don't mind used, there are a lot of great 24-70 f/2.8 Mark I and 24-105 f/4 IS lenses being sold by people that are upgrading to the 24-70 f/2.8 II. I actually just sold one of each. WIth so many for sale, they are both quite a bargain right now.

deronsizemore wrote in post #15268751
Thank you. I'm wanting to get the 5DMII, so it sounds like it would be a great with the 24-105. What I will probably end up doing is just getting the camera body and then renting a lens or two and trying them out. Might even go down to my local camera store to try as many as I can and decide.

If you get the 5D2 body only with B&H pricing now its $1799. With the 24-105 is $800 more. If you get the body only and decide to get the 24-105 later, than you have lost out on $350 of savings if you compare new to new costs since the lens is listed at $1150.

convergent wrote in post #15268769
If you don't mind used, there are a lot of great 24-70 f/2.8 Mark I and 24-105 f/4 IS lenses being sold by people that are upgrading to the 24-70 f/2.8 II. I actually just sold one of each. WIth so many for sale, they are both quite a bargain right now.

Thanks for the advice. I'll check around and see what kind of deals I can get.

FEChariot wrote in post #15268928
If you get the 5D2 body only with B&H pricing now its $1799. With the 24-105 is $800 more. If you get the body only and decide to get the 24-105 later, than you have lost out on $350 of savings if you compare new to new costs since the lens is listed at $1150.

I was noticing that. It's nice to get new, but I don't HAVE to get new as long as the gear works. I've heard good things about lensrentals used gear and that they have a 90 day warranty on their stuff along with a 3 day return policy in case you don't like it. I can get a 5DM2 from there for around 1400 and a 24-105 for around $750, so a little savings there. Not sure it's enough to warrant getting all used gear though. May be able to find this same used gear slightly cheaper here on POTN for sale. Haven't looked yet.

deronsizemore wrote in post #15268338
Thanks! So you're saying that it was "better" because of the full frame sensor then? Or was it build quality of the lens, etc., that made it a big step up from the Sigma 17-50? Would you say the results of the 24-105 on your crop would have been significantly better than your 17-50 on your crop? If so, how?

Thanks again. The Tamron 28-75 has my interest for sure. Good price and results I've seen look pretty amazing for my needs.

yes, the FF sensor gives you sharper photos. I still have raws taken from the sigma, and generally, it cant match the sharpness and clarity of the 5D2 image, regardless of lens. when I compare the 24-105, I meant to say that 24-105 on a FF > 17-50 on a crop > 24-105 on a crop... at least that was my experience. The 24-105 works a lot better on FF because it's not as demanding (larger pixels).

the tamron 28-75 had sloppy corners compared to the 24-70 mark 1, but for a budget system, that's really the way to go.