Tom's reviews
-
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
9 out of 10 points and recommendedImage Stabilizer, Range, Costcompared to other lenses I was considering, aperature...I just got this lens at a great price at a camera show, practically brand new. I was debating over a Sigma 24-70mm and a Sigma 18-50mm, both f2.8. Then I saw this lens and realized it had the perfect range that I was after. However, it wasn't f2.8. Not such a big deal when you throw in the image stabilizer. I was COMPLETELY amazed by how well it did taking photos indoors. I couldn't hold the Sigma steady enough for my liking plus it was bigger/heavier/bigger filter size/blocking flash, etc. So this lens quickly became my choice. Getting it for about the same price just made it a no brainer.
reviewed September 17th, 2006 (purchased for $450)
The only thing I'm curious about is image quality. Everyone gave wonderful reviews of the Sigma lenses I was after for image quality; however, from my testing today I like the quality of this lens. Though I have no basis for comparison. However, if I had to use the Sigma lens with a tripod .... at 18-50 or 24-70 just to get clear images if it wasn't sunny out...it sounds kind of silly. My Sigma 50-500mm is the same way. I need a bright sunny day or a monopod. Could be me, I mean I could shake or dip the camera yet...could also be the weight of the Sigma lenses.
So what good is a lens that I personally can't hold? No good, no matter how clear it is - I can't use it. Period. This lens, I can! Quite well too. This is very important because I shoot a lot of indoor shots or on during dusk or darker overcast days. Indoor/party shots are NOT just "drunk" pictures and sometimes it does matter. Weddings, events, etc.
However, I think the most underestimated part about the image stabilzer is the use in any circumstance - with filters. Even if it's a normal day out - and you have a few filters stacked or even just one that's taking you down a stop or two...not a big deal with the image stabilizer. Think about circular polarizer + enhacning filter... Think about neutral density filters... They suck your light up bad, but not so bad with the image stabilizer..
SO.. I'm quite happy so far (with a few hours of shooting). I love Sigma, but I'm afraid this lens is better for me at least and my shooting habits.
Also, I don't really notice bad vignetting....anyone who thinks there shouldn't be any at 17mm better rethink some things. I didn't notice any w/o filters, but some did exist with even one filter. I don't mind though. You won't find any lens in this category to not have vignetting, you need another lens.... a 10-22 or 10-20 or 12-24, etc. if that's your issue. -
Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM APO
9 out of 10 points and recommendedGreat zoom range, sturdy, good priceheavy, hard to hand hold, slow lensI love this lens, but like the others said here, it's tough to shoot with because of it's weight. I have also experienced "softness" however I think it's from movement. I have had some very crisp shots with this lens - but it's hard. I need a better tripod, I only have used a monopod with this lens. I did get one very nice hand held shot but it was on a sunny day. So there's a learning curve, you have to get used to the lens.
reviewed September 18th, 2006 (purchased for $1,000)
I think it's very well priced too.
If you want to beat the "softness" use a tripod. However, another very important note is the lens says it is a f/6.3. My Canon 20d will actually display f/5.6 as available at 500mm...DO NOT SHOOT AT f/5.6 @ 500mm. I believe it to be an error. Follow the instructions. Shoot at f/6.3 and your softness goes away at 500mm.
Other than that, good lens.