alexknudsen Junior Member 28 posts Joined May 2007 More info | Jun 25, 2007 17:00 | #1 I have about 500 dollars to spend, I'm looking from something with a fast f stop and Im also willing to buy something used for about 500. I would really like something wide maybe around 17mm and I dont need a lot of zoom
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jun 25, 2007 17:02 | #2 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for 1.6x crop body. Aloha,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xpsentity Senior Member  542 posts Likes: 1 Joined Dec 2006 Location: Arizona More info | Sigma 17-70. Fantastic piece of glass. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is excellent as well. Black boxes, glass shards
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jun 25, 2007 17:12 | #4 how about the sigma 18-50, is the 17-70 much better?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
liza Cream of the Crop 11,386 posts Likes: 1 Joined Feb 2005 Location: Mayberry More info | Jun 25, 2007 17:16 | #5  Permanent banThe Tamron lens gets my vote as well. I opted for the 17-55IS because I shoot for pay, but I considered the Tamron at one point.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xpsentity Senior Member 542 posts Likes: 1 Joined Dec 2006 Location: Arizona More info | I've heard good things about the 18-50, it's also a pseudo-macro lens. It's an EX, which is Sigma's "L" designation, so the build quality should be very good. That said, the 17-70 is no plastic piece of junk - it's metal, and feels very solid. Black boxes, glass shards
LOG IN TO REPLY |
saravrose "I quit smoking dope"  9,562 posts Likes: 3 Joined Aug 2005 Location: Between here and there More info | Jun 25, 2007 17:17 | #7 my tamron is incredible!! and I haven't regretted it or thought of upgrading it since it showed up.. Canon 30D BG_E2 Grip Rebel XT BG-E3 battery grip
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tony-S Cream of the Crop  9,911 posts Likes: 209 Joined Jan 2006 Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA More info | Jun 25, 2007 17:47 | #8 alexknudsen wrote in post #3438318  I looked at the 17-85mm and Ive also looked at the 17-40mm L lens. anyone have anything to say about either lens, or have any further suggestions The 17-85 gets mixed reviews on this forum. The 17-40L is built very well, has good saturation and fast focus. But many people, myself included, have had copies soft wide open. It's not until f/5.6 or f/8 that you get sharp images - and that's too slow for a walk-around. "Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Familiaphoto Goldmember  3,948 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jan 2007 Location: Chicago, IL More info | Jun 25, 2007 18:14 | #9 Look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. You can't go wrong for the price. Paul
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ChrisBlaze Goldmember  1,801 posts Joined Oct 2006 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii More info | Jun 25, 2007 19:44 | #10 Canon 28-135mm Canon 1D Mark II N/5D Mark III/ 6D/ 7D /85mm f1.2L Mk1/ 24-70 f2.8L/ 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM/ 100mm Macro f/2.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jun 25, 2007 19:50 | #11 My vote would be for the Sigma 24/28-70 ex, either one. I had the Tamron 17-50 and thought it was too short and felt a bit cheap, pictures were great though. I like the solid feel and some of the features on the sigma ex lenses. The 28-70 EX is great, and the 17-70 would be my next choice.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 1645 guests, 137 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
