Sigma 10-20 or Sigma 24-70

*davidallen*

*davidallen*

Member
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.
 
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.453237.jpeg

 
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.

545039_417561504925631_100000153557398_1884369_1142562548_n.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
i guess its each his own opinions, i think fisheyes absolutely suck for sports, wide angles give a much better look
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top