[ms]

Hi!

I have a Canon EOS 350D and have decided to buy a lense to replace the kit lense. I was about to go for the old version of this Sigma until I found there is a new MACRO lense which from the specs sounds great! It says macro even though I am lookin for a lense for landscape purposes. Still I like the oportunity to come this close to an object (20 cm).

It might be a bit early on for a review, I have tried to google for reviews of this lens, but have found non so far.

Does anybody have any experience with this lense? Found any reviews or know of any sample pics to be found on the net?

Thanks!

[Petographer]

Welcome to Shuttertalk MS. I haven't any experience with this lens but I would assume it is much better than the kit. Hang tight. Someone here might have some insight.

[soholinda]

Light Rules has done some real fine testing. Check him out...http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

[MelissaRV]

Is macro all it does? I bought a macro lens recently (it actually went up to 100mm and I still didn't like it lol) and was a bit disappointed in a few things with the main one being that you need to use a tripod and need to have fairly good light and another being the need to change lenses. I've since purchased a 28-300mm lens that does macro as well as wide angle and I'm much happier with that.

[matthew]

I don't have ant experience with this lens (or any Sigma, for that matter) but did find a short review of it here: four-thirds photo. It's a comparison between it and the Olympus 14-54 lens, which is a very capable piece of glass.

From what I can read, the Sigma looks like a good choice. The constant F/2.8 is going to be a major advantage over the Rebel's kit lens, and I'm sure you won't be disappointed with its sharpness.

The "Macro" designation is a little liberal on this lens, with a minimum focusing distance of 20cm and a magnification of 1/3. For comparison, the 14-54 that the review is comparing it to is not called a macro lens, but can still focus to 22cm and a 1/4 magnification ratio. But, unless you want to photograph very small items, this is a non-issue. I find my macro lenses can be annoying to use for normal photography, while the close-focus of my 14--54 has let me get several good photographs that I would have missed otherwise.

[shuttertalk]

Hi ms... not sure exactly which lens you're referring to, but if it's the Sigma 17-70 macro, then Russt has some positive reviews:

http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6420
http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6197
http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4661

Jules

[shuttertalk]

Hey ms, I just realised that I didn't read the topic title *blush*

Mitch (slejhamer) did a review of this lens and found it to be pretty good - definitely better than the kit lens anyway.
http://www.shuttertalk.com/articles/sigma1850ex

Jules

[matthew saville]

Compared to the old Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, the new one does indeed have a slightly better MTF chart. But of course, that's JUST an MTF chart...

Compared to a kit lens, the Sigma f/2.8 EX series lenses are going to be at least two steps up. They will be worth the money, and they're an affordable alternative to the Canon name brand f/2.8 options.

Also consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which may perform optically slightly better, but be slightly less strong and sturdy.

Then, if you decide that so many steps up is un-necessary, you can begin to consider "very decent" lenses that still better the kit lens but cost slightly less- The Sigma 17-70 is one, and it's price is just about right around my personal "minimum to pay and expect a really good lens", at around $300...

Take care,
-Matt-

[adam]

Hi Matthew Saville!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shuttertalk]

Hey Matt, good to see you again!

Thanks for the info - I didn't know Tamron had a 17-50 f2.8 model as well - will have to do some research...

[Janika]

The Tamron is real nice and I had the chance to try it out and it was very smooth and sharp. Excellent optics too, however the build quality might not be top of the line. It is also more expensive than the excellent Sigma AF 17-70 f/2.8-5.5 DC macro. The Tamron also has the tendency to hunt in low light situations. I did own the older Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX and it was a nice lens, but surprisingly the 17-70 is slightly better optically, plus it has an amazing ability to focus from close range and has an extra 20mm focal length. If the new Sigma 18-50 2.8 DC Macro is anything like the 17-70, I'd try it, but expect to pay more, since it's an EX lens!


John

[Shahbaz Rehman]

HELLO MS

I AM VERY FOND OF SIGMA LENS AND I REALLY LIKE TO USE 18-50MM WITH MY NIKON D100.

THIS IS THE BEST CHOICE BECAUSE OF 2.8 FSTOP. I READ A LOT ABOUT IT AND I WENT TO THE MARKET HERE IN KARACHI , PAKISTAN BUT NOT FOUND.

I AM USING SINGMA 28-105, NOW AND I AM ADDING 18-50 IN MY PERSONAL KIT.

I STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU TO BUY IT , BETWEEN 8 TO 16 YOU CAN GET THE BEST RESULT AND SHARPNESS, ON 22 THIS LENS BECOME LITTLE BLUR , IF YOU LIKE I WILL GIVE YOU THE MAIL IN WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE TEST RESULT AND INFORMATION ABOUT IT .


LOVE TO RECEIVE REPLY FROM YOU

SHAHBAZ