Sigma 17 70Mm F2 8 4 Contemporary Macro Review

good budget lens. Pros: great lens, great photos at wide angle, of course there is a barrel, but who doesn’t have it? Different cons: I bought the same lenses with a friend, he has excellent autofocus over the entire range of focal lengths, and in my copy at maximum zoom with autofocus,

Some pros: wide range of focal lengths, sharp enough, fast enough autofocus, very decent macro 1: 2, minimum focusing distance from the front lens is 3-4 cm. (20 is from the matrix!) Cons: 2.8 ends at about 35mm, I would like more, the zoom slides back under its own weight.

I re-read an enchanting number of reviews and chose it. from the macro mode-> the inscription MACRO in the model name. the sharpness on this macro is so-so. the only point is to make portraits point-blank at a wide angle. in general, it will do for every day. better anyway, a whale :) Pros: Aperture, structurally very pleasant, solid, lens hood included, macro, very fast autofocus With its cons. Sigma is a diagnosis, there is only one name from the macro mode, it’s useless to photograph at…

Bought over a year ago used. Before that, I used only whale. Excellent staff for reasonable money. On my Canon 450d, it produces a sharp picture at all focal lengths. Has pros: Sharp, after the whale sky and earth, more aperture, extended range of focal lengths (again compared to the whale) Blend included. Fast autofocus, macro mode. Different cons: A feature of Zoom is that it moves independently if you do not hold it up when shooting (due to its own weight, the trunk drives back), you must…

This lens cannot cost more than 6-7 thousand, as it seems to me. I compared the result with Sigma 24-60 2.8, canon 28-105L 4, Tamron 17-50 2.8. The ridiculous price difference from 24-60 does not correspond to the difference in picture quality: the sigma with the "ring" is much "softer", the colors live, the bokeh is "watercolor", indoors at 2,8 / 50 you can safely shoot without a flash, where for 17 -70 flash required. My personal opinion is that for an unpretentious photographer, normal…

I bought it 4 years ago, the first copy turned out to be sharp, for 4 years not a single failure, it works (ugh 3 times) like clockwork. The picture gives a decent one, there is no front / back focus, XA within reasonable limits, it gives a color shift to red, and since the hsm motor focuses more slowly than Canon lenses. The focus ring does not dangle like cheap canons, so manual focusing on it is more pleasant, I appreciated this when the focusing system on the camera failed.

I write a lot of reviews. I'm surprised I haven't written a review on this lens in 6 years of owning this lens. Here's my story. I lost a lot of money trying to resell old lenses after switching to mirrorless lenses. I gave up the fight and bought a cheap DSLR to use some of my old lenses as they are still in great condition. The 2.8-4 macro capabilities of this lens make it excellent on paper. I decided to mount this lens, shoot at home and set it up as a webcam as I do a lot of online…

I was looking for a multi-purpose vacation lens to attach to my 7D when I came across this one. I saw reviews of the new Sigma 35 f1.4 Art series on canonrumors.com and was very impressed with what I read. So I thought it was worth trying this lens. It ended up being just $499 versus $2100 for the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L II that I've spent some time with in the real world. You see, I've had almost 100 weddings in the last 6 years. However, I have never had a zoom lens, as I mostly photograph…

Bought this lens just over a year ago. I've used it occasionally for both indoor and outdoor photography and have had good results. It's over a year old now, has been to Europe twice and I've used it almost exclusively on a recent trip to France. We all want to take as many lenses with us to a shoot as possible, but travel often comes with a cost. It was a great lens for travel. I photographed indoors, outdoors, landscapes, with and without flash in incredibly dark places. I was very impressed…