Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Sigma 10-20 or Sigma 24-70

profile picture
*davidallen*
Posts: 191 - Karma: 49
So i am thinking of getting a new lens and i was hoping for some input from some more knowledgable sources.

Camera: Canon t3i
Current Lenses: 18-55 (kit) and 50 1.8

I shoot about 80% photo and about 20% video. And for photo i shoot a pretty large variety of things and for video it's been pretty much solely skiing.

Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 ($250) I really like the look of wide angles for photos and this seems like pretty good lens for filming skiing(follow cams). So i was curious what NS thought of this lens it seems like a few people own/have owned this lens.

Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Macro ($350) I was wondering what NS thinks of this lens as a replacement for the kit lens. Or should i just wait and get the Tamron 17-50 2.8 because it seems like a lot of people really like that lens.
Apr 6 2012 3:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Bear_Grylls
Posts: 1223 - Karma: 300
Where did you find this for 250? I have the lens and absolutely love it. this is the only picture using it that I have access to at the moment. Love this lens. I dont know much about the other one however.
Click for larger image
Apr 6 2012 11:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Kangbang
Posts: 14211 - Karma: 423
My friend has the 10-20 f/3.5. This photo was taken with that lens. I've used it and it's a super nice lens.
Click for larger image
Apr 6 2012 11:19PM
0 0
profile picture
.Ian.
Posts: 1568 - Karma: 71
I picked up my 10-20 4-5.6 on craigslist in mint condition for $200.
I love it, and I definitely recommend it. I've never used the 24-70, so I can't help you really there, but if you can get the 10-20 cheap, I say go for it.
Apr 6 2012 11:50PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61110 - Karma: 118,335
If you want a really good wide lens, id suggest the tokina 11-16 but its 600 bucks. the tamron 17-50 is a very nice lens too.
Apr 6 2012 11:51PM
0 0
profile picture
.Ian.
Posts: 1568 - Karma: 71
Oh and I also picked up my Tamron 17-50 2.8 for $350 on ebay, which is just about what you were planning on spending for the Sigma 24-70. My tamron just feels really cheap. It is a cheap lens though. I mean, the images are pretty good, and it will definitely get me by for awhile, but its build quality doesn't seem that great. Just thought I'd let you know how I feel about it.
Apr 6 2012 11:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,398
i wouldn't waste my money on either, save up for a tokina like Evan said
Apr 7 2012 12:35AM
0 0
profile picture
zbphoto
Posts: 7789 - Karma: 12,037
Tokina 10-17 (fisheye) and the sigma 10mm (fish) are both dope lenses as well, personally I think a fisheye is more useful for sports were the 11-16 is a dream for architecture and landscapes.
Apr 7 2012 12:18PM
0 0
profile picture
kzrstf
Posts: 2778 - Karma: 695
i guess its each his own opinions, i think fisheyes absolutely suck for sports, wide angles give a much better look
Apr 7 2012 5:30PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)