new lenses for portrait/walk around photos/opinions needed

has anyone had any experiance with any of these lenses?

17-35 Sigma
17-70 sigma
24-70 sigma
24-135 sigma
28-105 sigma

i need a better lens than the "kit" 18-55 lens for portrait and also medium tele photos.
or has anyone got annother lens to suggest, i don't have alot to spend so anything over around 900-1000 AUD is out of the question.

Sigma 24-70 F2.8 is what you want. I recently found my ideal lens, Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS, but that costs... more.

I'd second Tim - though the 17-70 is also worth considering - image quality seems to be excellent - check https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=186589

Why are you only consideig Sigma? Tamron have some nice lenses (in particular the 28-75 f2.8).

My choice would be the Tamron over the Sigma but only because I've had both and prefered the sharpness on my Tamron wide open.

Both are pretty good choices though.

Personally I think I'd go for the Sigma 17-70 DC, look in this forum there's only about 11 active threads on it alone.

Tim may have a point with the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8, I'll also recommend the popular Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 Xi if you're doing alot of medium tele/portrait work.

Yes, Tamron 28-75/2.8 unless you can afford the EFS 17-55/2.8 IS = great lens!

So basically, the 17-70, 24-70, and Tamron 28-75 are all great choices. Just to muddy the waters a little bit, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 are also fantastic lenses with great image quality.

If you ever plan on going full frame, the Tammy 28-75 is FF compatible. That turned the tides for me the most while trying to decide my kit lens upgrade .

bangarang wrote in post #2233713
If you ever plan on going full frame, the Tammy 28-75 is FF compatible. That turned the tides for me the most while trying to decide my kit lens upgrade .

If you go full frame you can always sell your lenses, probably for not much less than you paid for them, and buy new lenses. Look at the loss in value as a rental charge and it works out pretty cheap

thanks for the replys, atleast ive got a shorter short list now lol.

I bought the Sigma 17-70 this weekend and i LOVE IT.

Sgouz wrote in post #2236958
I bought the Sigma 17-70 this weekend and i LOVE IT.

I saw your gallery.

I just bought the same lens.

Were they hand held or tripod?

What have you found to be the sweet spot for this lens?

Just Be wrote in post #2237008
I saw your gallery.

I just bought the same lens.

Were they hand held or tripod?

What have you found to be the sweet spot for this lens?

Which gallery did you look at, the night shots of Ottawa? They were all hand held. The lens is great at 17mm 2.8, but you lose the 2.8 at anything > 17mm. Still a great lens for the price.

Sgouz wrote in post #2237031
Which gallery did you look at, the night shots of Ottawa? They were all hand held. The lens is great at 17mm 2.8, but you lose the 2.8 at anything > 17mm. Still a great lens for the price.

The one in your signature. Daytime shots.

I shot today at 5.6 and f/8 figuring this was the sweet spot with varied results. Most were softer than I wanted. Some were sharp leading me to believe the soft ones were due to slow shutter speed/hand held and hoping it wasn't the lens.

I saw on a review site that most of the sharp landscapes were taken at f/10 @ 1/250 and up to 1/800. Most of my hand held shots today were taken at a shutter speed of 1/125 and slower.

I'll try a tripod tomorrow. My original point was at what shutter speed did you use @ 2.8 or any setting? Thanks!

Most of the pics were at f/8 at 1/400-500.