gapvic Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Hi all, Can anyone tell me what Sigma lens are like? Is the quality OK? Thanks! Larissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 They are fabulous :) I have the 30 1.4 and it's wonderful. I have the Sigma 17-70 macro and it's fabulous, too. I had the 50-150 2.8 and it rocked. I have friends who have a whole range of Sigmas and to a one they are great lenses. Excellent value for money, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gapvic Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 Thanks Kja. I saw the 150-500mm recommended on a forum and it's not too expensive. Has anyone here used this lens or know much about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 ooo yeah, the big boys! Excellent bang for buck. I got to use them while in Africa and they're good stuff. I even considered buying one to take instead of my Canon 100-400 L just for the extra reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 There is a lens review section on the big pentax forum, what camera are you using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gapvic Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 A Nikon D7000. I'm doing a bit of sports photography (football) and am currently using my 70-300mm Nikkor lens. Wondered if maybe this Sigma would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Hmmm, not sure if the same specs across brand, but I'd google the lens model and review, you might find a nikon lens review site. If it's fast and sharp it would be great for sport shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gapvic Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 Yes, doing lots of googling :laugh: . Was just hoping someone here would have personal experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregW Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Yes, doing lots of googling :laugh: . Was just hoping someone here would have personal experience. I am just about to drop some cash on the 17-50 2.8 OS . I borrowed both the tamron 2.8 equivalent and Sigma and was impressed with the both the quaility of pics. The reason why I am going Sigma evem though its more expensive is the Tamron AF was to noisy ( sigma is near silent )and didnt have IS. Also the tamron can have slight lens wobble in which some screws work themselves loose after some time. This Tamron had it and it was off putting. I am also contemplating to combine it with the Sigma 30mm 1.4 prime as I can get a better deal for both. I have heard great things about the 30mm especaily if you have a crop frame camera. Would 17-50 and a 30mm make a great combo?? I quite like the idea of 30mm for indoor pets and kids/parties and experimenting and the 17-50 as general walk around or outside pet and kids stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirislin Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 How about this? http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=1964 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gapvic Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Wow . Just a bit outside my budget :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helen Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I have a30mm sigma too, a good lens and sharp, the 50mm sigma is apparently better than the Canon version. I did some reading of some of the Sigma zooms on B&H Photo and Video, and they did not compare as well to the Canon lenses, but have not looked at the lens you mentioned. It is a great site to read the customer reviews on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helen Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Greg, you already have 30mm on the 17_70 so maybe a slightly longer prime would be useful? 85 or 100 mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregW Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Greg, you already have 30mm on the 17_70 so maybe a slightly longer prime would be useful? 85 or 100 mm Hi Helen, True, but its having the 1.4 ability of the 30mm to do some more creative open wide stuff thats appealing. I had contemplated the 85 but its too long for what I want to shoot at the moment which is mostly photojournalist stlye pics for my website or the kids being themselves indoors My dilemma is finding a 2.8 wouldnt cut it for indoors and would end up buying this lens separately for $100 more later I have a attached are a couple of pics taken on the Tamron ( on Canon 100D) which I why I am definately getting the 2.8 zoom. Sigma pics where same quality but these two captures where my favs. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I'd get the 30 1.4 (in fact, I did) - it's a great lens for what you want to use it for and is a lovely complement to the zoom lens, imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregW Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I'd get the 30 1.4 (in fact, I did) - it's a great lens for what you want to use it for and is a lovely complement to the zoom lens, imho. Hi kja, I really enjoy looking at your blog, can u point me in the direction of any particular pics of yours where the 30mm 1.4 was a much better option than say using the zoom. Am keen to see what type of possiblities this lens could offer me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) oh man, I don't know where any photos would be off the top of my head! And I'd rarely have any to compare between as I tend to simply choose the lens that I feel will give me the results I want for any given thing. But I would say for sure when you are shooting inside with limited light - there is a tremendous difference between 2.8 and 1.4. And separating your sharp subject from a cluttered background - the 1.4 really helps here, too, even if you're stopped down a bit...again, 2.0 is way different than 2.8. And I love the feel a photo has when you're shooting and only have a prime - no zoom options. There's something about it that makes you get in the groove of the moment sometimes. You can do that with a zoom, of course, and I'd never give my zooms up, but with a prime your whole focus is more easily on the whole frame - especially if you're just starting to use primes (or using them again after a long time with zooms. I still find this to be true myself.) I don't know if that makes any sense but I know what I mean :) The 30 is also so tiny - perfect for just having around or taking with you and being unobtrusive. This can be a big thing for other people - they see you shooting but something about the low profile helps them forget about you faster. Don't know if you've looked at the Siggie 30 archive but it's probably got some great stuff in it :) Edited May 9, 2012 by kja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 oh, and thanks for liking looking at my blog!! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregW Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 oh man, I don't know where any photos would be off the top of my head! And I'd rarely have any to compare between as I tend to simply choose the lens that I feel will give me the results I want for any given thing. But I would say for sure when you are shooting inside with limited light - there is a tremendous difference between 2.8 and 1.4. And separating your sharp subject from a cluttered background - the 1.4 really helps here, too, even if you're stopped down a bit...again, 2.0 is way different than 2.8. And I love the feel a photo has when you're shooting and only have a prime - no zoom options. There's something about it that makes you get in the groove of the moment sometimes. You can do that with a zoom, of course, and I'd never give my zooms up, but with a prime your whole focus is more easily on the whole frame - especially if you're just starting to use primes (or using them again after a long time with zooms. I still find this to be true myself.) I don't know if that makes any sense but I know what I mean :) The 30 is also so tiny - perfect for just having around or taking with you and being unobtrusive. This can be a big thing for other people - they see you shooting but something about the low profile helps them forget about you faster. Don't know if you've looked at the Siggie 30 archive but it's probably got some great stuff in it :) Perfect explanation, thank you very muchly, I am very clear now on how having this combo would suit and yes have had a look at tonne of groups , POTN, flickr etc but much prefer to get advice from a dog lovers perspective :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helen Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Well considering that you want the lens for the wide apeture then the 30mm is great. Here are a few recent photos I have taken with the 30mm. The first photo I have th aperture at 1.8, and usually over 2, as I am not a huge fan of the out of focus nose, but will stop down occasionally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now