|
You can still find the Sigma 30 1.4 for Canon crop,. It's a great lens. I picked mine up of these forums for $200.
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Of all my travels with my Canon crop system, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 was the lens that saw the most action. It covers the perfect range of 99% of what I was shooting while traveling outside of an african safari where my 70-200 2.8 was pretty much the only lens I used. There are only a few times that I've wanted to go wider than 17 on crop and I could never justify buying a lens for those few instances. Then I said gently caress it all and bought a Sony RX100 m2 as my travel camera and never looked back. I like being able to put it in my pocket and walk along. I will only lug my SLR around again if I'm going somewhere specifically to capture photos like a safari or Iceland.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
17 on crop is wide, but it didn't feel REALLY wide like you might want in a lot of landscape shots, especially if you're trying to get landscape and night sky. The 10-18 or 10-22 might help out in those instances. Sigma also has a wide variety (no pun intended) of ultra wide angle lenses. https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/wide-angle-lenses?sigma_mount=11993
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Sterlingtek are great and reliable. I've used them in all my cameras for nearly a decade with zero issues.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
The sigma 24-70 2.8 has been coming out for a long time. I assumed the tamron would be as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Couldn't agree more. There's a reason camera phones became so important because they're small and always with you. My RX100 comes with me on all my travels because it takes great photos and fits in my pocket. It's nicer than camera phone pics and has real optical zoom with a manual ring. Hiking and backpacking trips are more enjoyable because it doesn't weigh me down like 15 lbs of batteries, bodies and lenses. DSLRs are great but they are pretty bulky and more tool than needed for most tasks. Also, 95% of most non professional people with DSLRs have no idea how to use the majority of the features and rarely take them out of auto mode. I honestly only use my dslr for weddings and paid work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
Doesn't have to be rx100 but something like it. Basically a high quality point and shoot that shoots raw has manual focus, optical zoom and has a good sized sensor.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I really need to pick one or two up as well. What’s the preferred third party brand again? I’ve seen it mentioned a few times but I’ll be damned if I can remember. Sterlingtek is the brand I've used for the last 12 years or so. I used them with my olympus and then my canon dslrs. They've been around a while and their batteries are usually sold in a 2 pack and $15 each or less. Zero issues, they usually have the same or higher capacity than the original. For full day weddings (8-10 hours) that I shot 1k photos, I usually had a battery grip with two batteries and I never ran out during the day. I have wasabi batteries for my gopro and I've never had issues with them either.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:I promised myself that if I ever went on a really expensive vacation I would finally upgrade my walk around lens (and now I'm going to Japan so it's hard to think of a more expensive vacation). I currently have a 28-135mm lens (the old kit lens from ten years ago) and I'm trying to decide between the 24-70 and the 24-105. I mostly use the lens for walking around in a large variety of situations, but mostly outdoors and during the day, though sometimes I use it at night. I like the idea of the IS and extra reach, but I know the 2.8 will help when I do shoot at night. Lots of talk online about how much sharper the 70 is, but anything would be sharper than my current lens. Anyone go though this before and come to a decision? It depends on your usage. Personally I would always prefer a faster, sharper (increased image quality) lens with slightly less focal length coverage (convenience) any day but thats just me. Depends on your usage and budget of course. If price is an issue, (24-70 2.8L ~$1,700) you could always go with a Sigma Art or Tamron 24-70 2.8 for $1000-1200) and you could get a 70-200 f4 ($500) for the same price of the Canon.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I'd love to see what they can add to the f/2.8 model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMSV4OteqBE&t=84s
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
Just be open to critique and even if you disagree, try to understand where someone is coming from. Try to avoid getting defensive/taking it personal. The goal is to improve from where you are now and most people are just trying to help.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The new f2.8 70-200 is optically identical to the existing version. Only differences are coatings on some lens elements to reduce flaring, and changing the paint on the outside to a lighter shade. Crack open those wallets everyone. holy gently caress he sounds like Kermit the frog
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Beverly Cleavage posted:The Mrs. is looking to get a new lens for the 80D. I use the sigma art 24-70 (albeit on a full frame Sony a7iii) and I love it. 1200 isn't much cheaper than 1600 but it is less. Or go with the tried and true favorite of the tamron 17-50 2.8 crop lens for $400, 450 for the vibration compensation model. Sigma and tamron Have both significantly picked up their game with their art series and g2 series lenses and are producing really high quality lenses for less. When I did shoot on a crop camera (50d) I liked the 17-50 focal range as it was roughly the same a the 24-70 on full frame.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 09:47
|
|