File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG IF Aspherical Wide Angle Zoom Lens - $219.95

Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG IF Aspherical Super Wide Angle Zoom Lens - $219.95

Is either of these worth getting?
I was thinking about getting a Sigma 10-20... Would either of these give me similar results?
>> Anonymous
if $220 is all you can afford

i would get the 17-35

normal on crop and ultra wide on film/full frame

the 24-60 will be awkward on crop but you will have constant f/2.8 but it's not like it's the most stellar lens ever

depends on your style
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
I'll let you know about the 17-35 in a few days, I've got one en-route to me. Everything Ive heard on it has been positive
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
this is all you need

FUCK zooms

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:03:23 15:23:06Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width350Image Height400
>> Anonymous
>>202684

I'd be putting it on a crop, so maybe the 10-20 is still the better lens for me.
I'd like something I can use to get wide-angle shots for foresty-type photography and street shots, so if these are both going to be normal (not wide) on a crop then that would kind of blow...
>> Anonymous
They're both very, very good for $220, especially the 24-60 in sharpness, even though the 17-35 is more useful on a crop body. But, there is a reason why they're $220 -- they're not made incredibly strong, there's sometimes terrible quality control, the colors are a little iffy, bad flare especially wide open, and it's loud.
>> Anonymous
>>202690

I'm using a pentax... anything similar for me? What should I look for?
>> Anonymous
>>202702
The 31mm f/1.8, if you can afford it.
>> Anonymous
i just realized this weekend that i could do a better job with 1 or 2 primes than a zoom

i was saving up for one of the big boys standard zoom with constant f/2.8

but then my current standard zoom was "stuck" at 24mm one time and i got like, 495850 more interesting shots than normal

so i'm going to get a 24mm or 28mm prime
>> Anonymous
>>202702
1. This is a normal lens, which is not what you seem to be looking for, although he's right it would be better for most everything than some stupid zoom.

I don't know what you mean by "foresty-type" ultrawide shots, but most people can't compose well enough with ultrawides, let alone compose street well with them. This would be better for that.

2. If you're not the OP, any lens between 28 and 35mm.
>> Anonymous
>>202721

At $869, not really.

Is the 35mm even moderately close to the same?
>> Anonymous
>>202724
Welcome to the light side.
>> Anonymous
>>202727

Sorry for being vague. I just find that I have a difficult time capturing decent forest shots (when I'm out hiking) with my shitty kit lens and 50/1.4, so I'd like something with a wider angle to help pull in more of the surroundings.

I'm 100% fine with getting a prime instead of a zoom, but my maximum budget right now is probably around $400 per lens.
>> Anonymous
>>202727

Like, what about the one of the Pentax DA pancake lenses? The 40/2.8 is around $275 and the 21/3.2 is just a bit over $400.
The non-pancake 35/2.0 is around $300 but can be hard to find. There's also a 30/1.4 from sigma for just over $400...

UGH.
I wish I could see sample galleries of each lens being shot by the same person so I could get a better idea of the differences. :(
>> Anonymous
>>202750

sounds like the sigma 10-20 is for you then
>> Anonymous
>>202750
How about the 16-45mm? It's decent enough and won't break the bank

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Pentax%20Lens%20Tests/48-pentax/134-pentax-smc-da-16-45mm-f4-ed-al-r
eview--test-report
>> Anonymous
>>202770

that's the same as his kit lens in range
>> Anonymous
>>202750
Is your kit lens wide enough but just shitty, or do you want something wider?
>> Anonymous
>>202782

Wider, I think.
All I know is that I saw some shots from the 10-20 posted here and was very jealous about how much of the surrounding the lens was able to capture.

Doesn't have to be as wide as the 10-20, but the kit lens seems to be lacking.
>> Anonymous
>>202789

the 10-20 is your cheapest option

they don't make primes that wide for crop

actually, i'm pretty damn sure it's the cheapest UWA for all brands
>> Anonymous
>>202790
They need to. I don't know the technical hurdles, but a 17mm f/1.8 prime would be awesome.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>202763

It's not particularly wide, but the Pentax 21mm F/3.2 Limited lens is fucking awesome.

Pic related.

http://flickr.com/photos/minami/338437473/sizes/l/
>> Anonymous
>>202796

it would cost the same price as a ultra wide

not worth it for manufacturer and us
>> Anonymous
>>202796
I know there's an AF 18/2.8 Nikkor.

Do you realize how big a 17/1.8 would be, though? The Sigma 20/1.8's already gigantic.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>202821
As wide primes go, there's the Canon 14/2.8L, but I can't see that getting any faster without approaching Sigma 200-500/2.8 size.
>> Anonymous
>>202839
Yeah, there's a bunch of 14/2.8s, but he was talking about a hypothetical 17/1.8. Hence mentioning an extant 18/2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>202789
The 16-45 might work, then. 24mm equivalent.
>> Anonymous
>>202798

That's hot.
Do all brands have pancake lenses like that?
>> Anonymous
>>203135
Sadly no, as a Canonfag, that's one of the things I severely envy of Pentaxfags.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>203135
Sadly, no. There's the manual focus but still in production Nikkor 45/2.8P, and then from there you're left with older manual focus stuff from various manufacturers.

And there's the very recent Olympus 25/2.8 but we're all supposed to hate 4/3rds here.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>203135

OH wow, the 40mm is so thin...
From user pix it looks like it's less than 1" long...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>203166
fapfapfapfapfap

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2004:09:15 22:48:01ISO Speed Rating50Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1024Image Height768
>> Anonymous
>>203166

Which would be more useful for walking around? 40mm or 21mm?
>> Anonymous
>>203247
Why don't you try them on your 18-55 and let us know?