I had previously experimented with tamrons that had focal lengths that were comparable to this Sigma. Everyone had things they could improve on, but unfortunately there was no money for this lens. The presence of a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens was the only thing that was pleasing to the eye. This lens worked quickly, hit its target accurately, and produced an excellent picture that was very sharp. I made a decision, and I sold all of the lenses simultaneously. This one had to wait for three weeks…

When using a cropped carcass, the lens provides acceptable results for shooting video. You are able to zoom in and out without any aperture jumps while you are using a constant aperture. Focal lenses are quite comfortable - from wide to portrait lens. Nevertheless, once you start utilizing it in a photograph, all of the benefits become null and void. Landscape painters are likely to be dissatisfied due to the lack of sharpness in the image. When the picture is taken from the top down, the trunk

Has pros: Aperture, stabilization, manual focus - with a mechanical washer and not through electronics as in cheaper lenses, fast autofocus Has some cons It is huge and very heavy, strong backlash of the retractable part, it does not seem to affect the quality of the photos, but for its price it looks dumb!

Pros: The picture is realistic, almost without distortion, everything suits, except for shortcomings Cons: There are problems with dust and moisture. Dust and moisture get inside very easily. Compensated only by very careful use.

With its pros. aperture, stub, speed, picture quality. - everything you need from a lens. There were no complaints about the lens . Cons below: at 17, of course, it fills up the edges, but what else to expect at such an angle?

Used analogs include the Canon 18-135 STM and the 24-105 f4 L. The same FR is being used here. I tested it against an alternate staffer CANON 24-105 f4 L in sunny weather, but with clouds, then in drizzling rain, and then inside an apartment with and without a flash at aperture 5.6, which turned out to be the most optimal setting for both lenses. The following are the deductions I made: For my own purposes, I find that hue 24-105 is a touch cozier, more vivacious, and more fascinating. This one

With this lens attached, the Canon 60D weighs a little bit more than what I would consider to be an appropriate weight for carrying while traveling. This is just my opinion. Because the answer to this question depends on the person asking it, it is prudent to weigh the equipment before making a purchase so that one can get a sense of how comfortable it will be to wear (on the neck or in a backpack). I was able to sell a camera package that included a lens and a flash. These are some advantages:

Great lens for crop. But when buying, be careful, you can’t rely on quality without looking, after all, it’s not L! Has some pros Constant decent aperture, ultrasonic motor, stabilizer - all this is very useful, especially if you sometimes indulge in shooting video. Internal focusing, the location of the rings for focus and zoom - everything is convenient. Has cons: The quality can vary greatly from one copy to another. I chose from two brought to me in the store. One turned out to be decent…

In my personal opinion, the Canon 60D with this lens weighs a little more than what is a comfortable travel weight for me. This question is individual and therefore it makes sense to check the weight of the kit before buying to get a feel for how comfortable it will be to wear it (on the neck or in a backpack). Sold a camera kit with a lens and a flash. Pros below: 1) The clarity and naturalism of the picture at a focal length of 24 to 55 are really great photos. 2) The stabilizer allowed me to

I took it from my hands, a pure Japanese, it works like a clock, until it has never let me down. Perhaps the best that can be taken from the EF-S series. Different pros: 1. Sharp picture, good aperture (however, the background blurs relatively weakly). 2. Very fast, accurate and quiet usm focusing. 3. The stabilizer works great, even at 1/8 second you get quite decent shots. 4. Pretty wide angle. 5. Solid assembly, the trunk does not leave (at least for me), nothing backlash. 6. Such a big

For more than 2 years of use, I have become so used to this lens that I am not ready to change it for something else. I shot them in the studio, and at sea, in the mountains, at night. always been pleased with the results. When buying, I rejected 3 options (front / back), so choose carefully. With its pros. - Constant aperture 2.8 - No artifacts (chromatic aberrations, etc.) Its cons: The weight. (800 gr) Price (although everything about nikon 17-55 is 50% more expensive)

The stub showed itself neutrally - I didn’t notice a super improvement, aperture 2.8 is also neutral - it only helps to blur the background, you still need to shine in the dark. Vacuuming, yes, the filter does not heal. Well, the quality does not affect, from personal experience. Yes, it works at 550, I bought it from my hands for 22k. Has pros: IQ! sharp, colorful. I tried 24-105, 17-50 tamron - they are incomparable, definitely, the first is less juicy, the second is less sharp. Let's…

I have both the widths of the professional L series and this lens. So I compared in practice many times. On crop it gives better results than electric. The combination of constant aperture and stabilizer gives excellent results. The best lens for cropped cameras. With its pros. Excellent sharpness, constant aperture (and 2.8 is quite a working range), the presence of a stabilizer and an ultrasonic motor. Got cons: high price despite the fact that not L. The design of the vacuum cleaner…

Great lens for crop. But when buying, be careful, you can’t rely on quality without looking, after all, it’s not L! With its pros. Constant decent aperture, ultrasonic motor, stabilizer - all this is very useful, especially if you sometimes indulge in shooting video. Internal focusing, the location of the rings for focus and zoom - everything is convenient. Its cons: The quality can vary greatly from one copy to another. I chose from two brought to me in the store. One turned out to be decent…

I am very pleased with the lens. In fact, it has no analogues in the 17-55 range, because what is called an alternative to this lens is inferior to it either in terms of optical characteristics or functionality. Different pros: Constant aperture, fast autofocus, very sharp, contrast, good performance stabilizer, supports E-TTL II flash mode, aberrations are minimal like L-lenses. Cons: It’s hard to find a native hood even in Hong Kong, and besides, it’s expensive. Expensive filters for 77mm…

This lens has no analogues for crop in terms of the combination of its characteristics, and this is the only possible high-quality crop lens at these focal lengths. I have been using it for a little over a year and it has become almost a regular lens due to its versatility, but, of course, it is not able to replace the zoom. Some pros: 1. Aperture. 2. Weight itself and convenient design. 3. Sharpness. 4. Stabilizer and knots. motor - everything works quickly and silently. Cons below: The…

Became the main standard lens. I always take it on trips. Yes, it weighs a lot, but the quality is worth it. I advise you to buy a lens hood - then the front lens will be less splattered and spattered, plus there is less chance of catching hares from the side light. Has some pros 1. Focusing speed and accuracy. 2. Sharp, contrasting. 3. The stabilizer is very helpful. 4. Possibility of manual focus correction without switching to manual mode. With its cons. A year later, when shooting up /…

Good for portraits, reporting, genre photography. Decent bokeh. You need a hood, take it right away. I shot everything with him, including weddings. Also very good for video. I put 4 only because of the weak case. Has pros: Autofocus and stabilizer are very pleasing, very, very suitable for a portrait. Bokeh is present :) The presence of such a lens allows (to some extent) to keep up with full frames (if they do not have Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC, of ​​course :)) Its cons: Dust is picking up a…

I have L-series glasses at work. So I don't see any difference in picture quality. So I advise) With its pros. I suffered with my tamron, which is 28-75 2.8 and decided that I would not mess with non-native budget optics. My copy pleases me: 1. sharpness, even at 2.8 2. focus speed 3. Focuses well and makes good sharp shots even in very poor lighting! 4. Washes the background well, not 1.4 of course, but not like the old lens. Has cons: for me personally there are none. can be expensive…

I needed a 60D lens for travel. I read reviews for several days and chose between 17-55 and 24-105L. The reviews advise more to take 17-55. But, of course, I subconsciously wanted L. As a result, I went to Gorbushka and there I didn’t have to persuade me for a long time to take 24-105L (which turned out to be 3000 cheaper, which was very captivating along with the red stripe :)). I took it at 9 pm, it was already dusk on the street. I didn’t like how 24-105 lathers at dusk and indoors. On the…