File :-(, x, )
sigma 17-70mm Anonymous
Anyone know of an equivalent lens to a sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.6 DC macro for a canon 400d/xti?

I am selling mine, and want either the same thing or something similar. are any of the higher zoom ranges comparable in quality and performance? (say 18-200mm)

I've looked before, but never found anything.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-W200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:11 18:22:11Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating320Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.60 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3426Image Height2286RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
Why are you selling yours?
>> Anonymous
Canon EF-S 17-85 IS

should be optically equivalent to the sigma and IS to boot, but it's like 3.5 or so at 17mm
>> Anonymous
>>183913

oops, it's only f/4 at the widest

but hey, ring USM with FTM, no more silly buzzing AF like the Sigma

the 28-135 IS gives you even more reach but it's not the best lens ever, neither is the 17-85 which _is_ the EF-S version of it if you're still following me

24-105 f/4 L IS is the next step up
>> Anonymous
>>183910

get the 18-200 its only f/3.5 but hey, great coverage right?

also quality isn't too bad, just got mine this week, been taking great pics with em!
>> Anonymous
>>183913
I wouldn't recommend the 17-85. It has terrible distortion at the wide end and is pretty soft throughout. It'd be great if it were less than $300 but it's overpriced as it is now.
>> Anonymous
>>183912
it has problems... once you stop it down to f/8 or lower, the aperture diaphram would get stuck, and stop down further wich each consecutive shot. to get it unstuck, you'd have to run it from 17 to 70mm a few times, take the lens off and put it back on. sometimes putting it at f/2.8 and taking a shot would do it. other times you'd have to basically jar the diaphram into unsticking.

don't get me wrong, a 17-70mm lens that can only go to f/7.3 or whatever is cool and all, but there are occasions where I kinda need those extra f stops.

I've had some pretty good lenses, basically the top of the line canon set: 16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70 f/2.8L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and a 50mm f/1.4 (wich is no f/1.0, but still filled that catagory). I've been satisfied with the 17-70mm since i've been poor, and have to repurchase a lens in a similar price catagory (sub 400$)
>> Anonymous
>>183936
Is it out of warranty?
>> Anonymous
>>18393624-70 f/2.8L IS

lolwut
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>183937
yes, by a month.
>>183940
yaaa... I had a lot of money then. I didn't realize that if you put 50K into a retirement account that gets 10% (mutual fund), it can become about 3 million in 40 years if your mutual fund (or other investments) stay consistent... so instead of assureing myself retirement, I got a lot of great stuff, including canons best of the best line up of lenses.

but, when you buy a lot of stuff and don't regard things like retirement, consistent income and "spend less then you make" with any seriousness, you end up nearly bankrupt. or bankrupt.

so now I enjoy the midrange lenses, and a much smaller set. in this case, one lens because I'm also selling my sigma 10-22mm and 70-300mm.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-W100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:04:16 08:55:18RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Compulsory, Return DetectedFocal Length7.90 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1612Image Height2988
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
the tokina 10-17mm was also a fun lens.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:02 23:54:05Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length48.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height799RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>183957

>> 24-70 f/2.8L IS
>> f/2.8L IS
>> IS

lolwut
>> Anonymous
>>183957

He (>>183940) is saying that there is no IS on the 24-70 f/2.8L...
>> Anonymous
i would pay $1,699 USD for a 24-70 2.8 IS
>> Anonymous
>>183960
damn, your very right. haven't had it for a while now... the IS on the 70-200 worked great. my brother was pissed when we both shot a wedding, and only 10% of his photo's were usable becuase of blur, but 60% of mine were good. (most of the reception shots worth having were at dusk or after)
>> Anonymous
>>183974

you bought all that glass, but no flash? lol
>> Anonymous
>>183985
I did, but when a father who hasn't seen his daughter in 6 years is talking about how much he loves and misses her, I feel like a bit of an ass flashing him in the face 20 times to get a good facial expression. I'd rather take 200 shots and just cut out the 190 slightly blurred shots to get something usable and refrain from annoying everyone.
>> Anonymous
>>183992
Or you can do what they pay you to do, and flash them in the face.

OP is a fucking dumbass.
>> Anonymous
>>183993

agreed. OP, flash is an essential part of event photography...dear god. I wouldn't even think of going to a wedding without at least 2 flashes and lots of batteries...
>> Anonymous
>>183993
They had a professional photographer, me and my brother were doing it partly for fun, partly to add to whatever photo's they got from the photographer, since most of what he was doing was set up shots. ours were the in between interaction moments.

If I was getting paid to do it, I would have no qualms with being in the middle of the isle during the vows, flashing people in the face, and telling people where to go and what to do. But since someone was already doing that, I tried to be polite. It also helped to avoid double flashing someone while the paid photographer was working.