Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CometGuy
Just for you ( )have added a few test images made with the Sigma 17-70 of the milky way at different focal lengths:
|
Terry, thanks for posting the link to your comparison.. It's very telling really, and chimes with the reviews I've read..
That is, quite a lot of barrel distortion at the 17mm end, but quite acceptable over the rest of the range. As an upgrade from the kit lens, it looks like a nice, affordable alternative.
$479 is a very good price too! Thanks very much.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sharnbrook
Yes. I appreciate that, but I have heard of people using this lens as a "walk around" lens
|
I've read the same things about the Canon 17-85 IS, since it's got a good zoom range, IS (great for handheld down to 1/30s) and sharp at most focal lengths, it's said that if you can only carry one lens around, it's a great one to have.
It's significantly more expensive than the Sigma 17-70, with the addition of IS and slightly longer zoom range, and for sharpness they appear to be similar, with both of them being pretty bad at the 17mm end.
Thanks for your inputs, keep them coming.. i'm still open to ideas as I haven't made a decision yet.