Anybody out there got a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS. Any comments/criticisms of the lens and is it superior to the non-stabilised version.
Considering as a walkabout on a D90
Cheers,
Ian
Anybody out there got a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS. Any comments/criticisms of the lens and is it superior to the non-stabilised version.
Considering as a walkabout on a D90
Cheers,
Ian
Ian
Never too old to learn
Nikon D90, Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC, Nikon 18-105VR, Nikon 35/1.8, Tamron 90/2.8, Tamron 18-270 VC, gorillapod, SB 600
Hi ian i have just purchased the 17-70 2.8 4.5 DC macro lens,matched with the canon 30D and i am extremely happy with it an awsome walk around lens and very sharp i cant see there being to much difference in these two lenses as far as image quality goes i would definatley reccomend it.
steve.
I might be interested in this lens to fit on a Canon 7D, been looking around for an alternative to the Canon offerings of similar zoom range in their L series, wonder how the Sigma stacks-up against them?
Richard
I've been wrong before!! Happy to have constructive criticism though.Gear used Canon 50D, 7D & 5DMkII plus expensive things hanging off their fronts and of course a "nifty fifty".
In my personnal opinion and from experiance richard you really dont need IS at them focal lengths just pointless,200mm yes but below that no "unlees you have an illness and you do suffer with shakes"
steve.
I've also got the 17-70 and found it to be a great lens for the money, and agree with Steve on the stabilization, never really needed it unless i was using very low SS's.
Jayde
Honest CC whether good or bad, is much appreciated.
Love and enjoy photography, but won't be giving up my day job.
Flickr