Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC Macro HSM Opinions

[koffiejunkie]

If you're looking to get a 70-200 then a 24-70 might be a better bet unless you have something that covers that deficit.

I tend to find the gap between 55 and 70mm less of a hassle than 17-24 on 1.5/1.6x crop. But that's just me.

Does anyone have experience with this lense ?

You don't say what your budget is? I've shot with both the new Sigma 18-55 f/28 OS HSM and the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 on a D90 and D7000 bodies (although they weren't mine, so my exposure is limited). The Nikon really shines, and would be my first choice, although all the competition are now stabilized. They're all excellent lenses though.

Oh, and, there's no e...

 

[bwana]

I tend to find the gap between 55 and 70mm less of a hassle than 17-24 on 1.5/1.6x crop. But that's just me.

I've also got a 16-35, but tbh it's rarely needed.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I've also got a 16-35, but tbh it's rarely needed.

24 x 1.3 = 31.2mm

24 x 1.6 = 38.4mm

I would probably be satisfied with 24mm on a 1.3x crop body 99% of the time. On the 7D it's a touch narrow to my taste.

 

[hilton]

Here's a pretty good review of the Tamron lens.

 

[bwana]

24 x 1.3 = 31.2mm

24 x 1.6 = 38.4mm

I would probably be satisfied with 24mm on a 1.3x crop body 99% of the time. On the 7D it's a touch narrow to my taste.

Fair enough - I've just had a quick look at some of my recent archives and I've used the 24-70 on my 7D as much as on my 1D so I can't really say I favour it more on one than the other.

 

[DGremlin]

Here's a pretty good review of the Tamron lens.

The site also likes the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and favours it over the Canon 28-135mm. I know nothing about the 28-135 however still nice comparison.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75.html

This is the problem with you guys, I ask an opinion and I get them with options !

Now the Tamron 28-75 is an option, in fact I am favouring it over the 17-50's at the moment.

 

[koffiejunkie]

28mm is even narrower on the wide end. You need to make sure 28 or 24 is wide enough for your purposes.

 

[hilton]

The problem with the 28-75 or even the 24-70 lenses are that they are not in the traditional focal length for portraits. I'm talking crop here.

If they made a 30-85 f/2.8, this would be magic for crop. Covers the portrait range plus the 'normal' length (50m equivalent on 35mm)

 

[koffiejunkie]

Really? I thought a fast 85mm prime was a very popular portrait lens in the film days? That translates to about a 50mm on a crop body (and sure, fast 50s are very popular for this). 70mm gives you a "traditional" 105-112m odd on a crop body.

 

[bwana]

The problem with the 28-75 or even the 24-70 lenses are that they are not in the traditional focal length for portraits. I'm talking crop here.

If they made a 30-85 f/2.8, this would be magic for crop. Covers the portrait range plus the 'normal' length (50m equivalent on 35mm)

I had to admit I'd never heard of a traditional focal length for portraits so I did a quick google and up popped this from the Digital Picture.

Conventional teaching is that the 85-135mm focal length range is ideal for portrait photography (field of view crop factor included). I generally agree with this teaching. I will often use a wider focal length for full body portraits and group pictures and a longer focal length range for tighter-framed portraits such as head shots.

Now, taking that into account the 24-70 would never fall into the portrait lens category on a full frame body but on a crop it still slots in quite nicely (38.4-112mm) - particularly if you've got a 70-200.

Personally I pick the lens to fit the portrait and as a result have used all of the focal lengths available to me including my 16-35 and 300mm f/2.8 so there's nothing problematic about using a 24-70 on any body.

 

[hilton]

koffiejunkie and bwana, you are doing the sums incorrectly.

I maintain that the traditional (taught at photo schools for years) is 85-135 on 35mm. We can argue this but there's science behind the numbers, not personal preferences or revelations from drug induced comas

Anyway, I normally agree with Bryan but this time I disagree.

So.

1. If the 85-135 works for both crop and full frame then unfortunately the 24-70 won't work. Remember 70mm is 70mm is 70mm.

or

2. 85-135 translates to 53-85 on crop then the 24-70 partially works but as I pointed out earlier, the perfect focal length on a lens for crop would then be 30-85.

BEEG disclaimer, you can take portraits with whatever lens you want. If your subject likes it then that's fine hey.

 

[DGremlin]

I
Now, taking that into account the 24-70 would never fall into the portrait lens category on a full frame body but on a crop it still slots in quite nicely (38.4-112mm) - particularly if you've got a 70-200.

Personally I pick the lens to fit the portrait and as a result have used all of the focal lengths available to me including my 16-35 and 300mm f/2.8 so there's nothing problematic about using a 24-70 on any body.

I know a bunch of people who work within the 24-70 range for portraits etc and their stuff is really good.
As mentioned with a cropped frame it becomes 40-110mm and thats a nice portrait and events scope, its a nice generic.

 

[koffiejunkie]

koffiejunkie and bwana, you are doing the sums incorrectly.

I beg to differ. We're talking about field of view, not absolute focal length.

I maintain that the traditional (taught at photo schools for years) is 85-135 on 35mm. We can argue this but there's science behind the numbers, not personal preferences or revelations from drug induced comas

State your source? We're not afraid of the science. I'd love to see how that's formulated. 85mm and 135mm doesn't even look the same. They just happened to be the two consecutive lens choices for a very long time.

1. If the 85-135 works for both crop and full frame then unfortunately the 24-70 won't work. Remember 70mm is 70mm is 70mm.

....

2. 85-135 translates to 53-85 on crop then the 24-70 partially works but as I pointed out earlier, the perfect focal length on a lens for crop would then be 30-85.

"partially works" make it sound like part of the image would be missing. A bit like the folks on a certain other forum who maintain you can't shoot weddings with a crop body, or something similar. It works completely unless you want to use a longer focal length.

I agree with bwana. The situation dictates the focal length.

 

[DGremlin]

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

here is a comparison of how you focal length affects your subject ... took a little while to find this .. nice to see though.

 

[GTi]

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

here is a comparison of how you focal length affects your subject ... took a little while to find this .. nice to see though.

WOW amazing, thanx for the link DGremlin.

 

[hilton]

Ok, 135 for head shots and 85 for full body or group shots. It's the focal length that best brings out the features of a person. I.E. not distorted or two compressed. Sorry I don't have my Harvard lecture notes at hand...

So partially means a 24-70 (on crop) will take great group shots but doesn't have the range for close ups.

Heck what do I know, I'm just a woodworker that does IT in the daytime.

 

[DGremlin]

OK. I decided to get the Tamron 28-75 2.8.

Adorama had a used high graded one available.
Main reason, I dont want to spend R10000 up on a focal length I wont use, so I am getting this a "test", besides I can probably get back what I paid for this lens(e) when I sell it.
I may love or hate the Tamron, hopefully love .. although I do see myself upgrading if I do love the focal range.

I was sorely tempted to get a Tamron 17-50, but the lack of higher focal range dissuaded.

One note for anyone looking into Tamrons, they currently have no local support, anything needing repair has to travel all the way to Japan, you will be 2 months minus your lens(e)
Sigma does have local support.

 

[DGremlin]

OK. So the package I ordered from adorama.com on Tuesday has arrived ( now thats prompt ). Oh yes and it spent 1 whole day waiting to be cleared from customs.

So I will give it a run this weekend and post some test results/photos.

 

[floydthebarber71]

What was the final cost including shipping and import duties compared to buying locally?

 

[DGremlin]

What was the final cost including shipping and import duties compared to buying locally?

Standard Shipping $85 ( UPS Worldwide Saver 1-3 days )
Customs "handling" fee R100 - has some other name
Customs 14% VAT

Example :
Sigma 17-50 2.8 HSM
http://www.adorama.com/SG1750EOS.html

$669 ( R5452.35)
+$85 ( R 692.75 )
+R100
+R763.33 ( 14% VAT )
------------
= R7008.43

SAcamera = R8,681.00
http://www.sacamera.co.za/product/1016379/Sigma_1750mm_F2.8_EX_DC_OS_HSM_for_Nikon/

So long you dont mind having to ship your stuff back to the US for warranty claims you can save quite a bit, but I would say that know what you want and the check locally for prices.
I was quite impressed the entire deal took 4 days and that includes the day of purchase.