File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
alright /p/ time for a lens comparison! I am thinking about getting either the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8 or the tamron 17-35 f/2.8 for landscape and nature photography. which one should I get? (or if you have another suggestion, but please less than $400ish)
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:10:31 07:48:48Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width500Image Height500
>> Anonymous
nature like animals or nature like treebark?
>> Anonymous
Out of the 4 lenses I own, the Sigma 17-70 is on my camera 99% of the time. Yeah, I'm lazy, but I like to travel light, and this is easily the most versatile lens I have that takes nice, sharp photos.

Never looked at that Tamron, although the 17-50 f2.8 gets mentioned a lot around here.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
this for Nikon or Canon mount?
coz if for nikon, you can pick up a good second hand (or even new) Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G IF-ED DX (D70 kit lens)
its a great lens super sharp and only a stop slower on the wide end.
>> Anonymous
Ifyou don't need so much wide angle, I'd suggest Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Sharp and Fast, just check yours for FF/BF.
>> Anonymous
sorry, i forgot to mention, i shoot on a nikon system and yes I will be doing both "animal" and "tree bark" nature photography, I talked with a local camera store and they said the sigma was less bang for more buck...and then suggested the tamron they had in stock :)
>> Anonymous
>>87490
yes it is a real camera store, and yes i told them what i'd be doing. I also explained that I already have a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-300 f/4
>> Anonymous
In my opinion, the build quality of Sigma lenses now far exceeds all other off-brand lenses by some margin. Their 24-70 f2.8 is every bit as well put together as Canon & Nikon's equivalent offerings and nearly as good optically. Tamron lenses feel rather cheap & plasticky to me. Says nothing about optics, I know, but if you're going to be out in the wilderness...
>> Anonymous
>>87494
That's true only for the more expensive lenses, many of the cheap ones suck ass. Sigma 28-200 DG and 18-125 DC are the most plasticky lenses I've ever used.
>> Anonymous
I own the Tamron 17-35 (on a Minolta camera) and while it's a very good lens, it's definitively not a "walking around" lens (I had to buy a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 to go with that one and I love it).

I also hope you own a mounted flash because the regular flash might cast a shadow when shooting wide.
>> pskaught
I've learned thats its just not worth it to skimp and buy a shitty lens, because when you want to "step it up" your shitty lens just cannot handle it. I don't care what anyone says, tamron and sigma are not good quality.

do you need a 2.8 for nature photography?

bought a 16-35 L series today. no going out to eat for a little while.
>> Anonymous
>>87513
Of course he doesn't need it. That's why he's settling for not-so-great build quality. Some 3rd party options are actually okay-ish, though. Will they break if you drop them? Yeah. But shit, what doesn't?

On a mildly unrelated note... if I knew that I wouldn't get busted by customs, I'd order a 16-35L off the interbutts. 700eur in the states isn't actually that bad compared to the 1500eur it costs here.
>> des
>>87515
no US friends that could buy one and post it to you as a "gift"?
>> Anonymous
>>87513
You know Leica and Zeiss users say the same thing about Canon and Nikon glass, right?
>> Anonymous
for animal photography youre gonna want something pretty long so you dont scare stuff away and/or alert it to your presence and get you killed/mauled/maimed/trampled/bitten/gored/etc. even if just to get more of a head start running away from it.
>> Anonymous
>>87518
Customs don't buy into "Gift" anymore. Maybe if it's small enough, but a camera lens? You'd have to be lucky.
>> Anonymous
aperture is king for nature photography.
it allows fast shutter speeds for those uncooperative animals that refuse to pose for you and good signal to noise ratios when the hide in the shadows as well as small depth of field to help them stand out from the background regardless of how well the manage to cammoflage themselves
>> Anonymous
>>87551

You can get away with it sometimes. If all else fails, lie.
>> Anonymous
Sigma does not make 17-70mm 2.8 lens.
>> Anonymous
>>87575

I also forgot to mention, that Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 are both nice choices. Especially the new Sigma 18-50mm macro apo ex dc hsm for Nikon F mount.
>> Anonymous
>>87575
indeed, theres a sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 though
>> street-pirate
How about going to the states, buying the lens, mailing the warranty and receipt to yourself, and then going home acting like this had always been your lens.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>87575

yeah lol, i was thinking they forgot that it loses the 2.8 almost immediately past 20mm.

a 17-70mm 2.8 would be awesome... but also massive as all hell.