Guest Tess32 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I'd like to sell my Sigma 17-70mm and swap it for a very similar priced lens. The only reason I use it is for the wide angle aspect so that I can do a few family portraits if I have to. However I find the image quality a bit lacking and I wonder if there is a better option , maybe just a wide angle prime? Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huga Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I use my 24mm the most. It's always tack sharp too. Couldn't live without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 So you don't find it too long at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Or I could live without a wide angle and get the 85mm, which would mean the 50mm is the widest angle I have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huga Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Nope. I couldn't have the 50mm as my widest, just not wide enough for groups (for me - I like to be closer). I used the 24mm constantly on the DX, but there is slight distortion on the FX - but still quite useable. I used the 24mm for the entire bathroom project - it was the only lens wide enough to use in such small spaces. I have the 105mm which I love so much more on the FX, but it is a bit slow for kids. Stunning for portraits though, I use it a lot for weddings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 That's what I'm tossing up on...would I do enough group shots to really need it. Argh, I don't know. Do you think 24mm could be used for any kind of newborn stuff for eg, or too much distortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huga Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Most definitely. I do tend to shoot in a lifestyle way though. I just wouldn't use it for close ups. There is only slight distortion on the edges with the FX, none with the DX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huga Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) I went and found some examples. 24mm on DX (I actually used this as I wanted some distortion - ie Brian's legs to appear longer, but there's not really any): Edited June 18, 2012 by huga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huga Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) On FX Sorry I would literally have thousands of images at 24mm - I use it the most. Edited June 17, 2012 by huga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Hmmm...you may have convinced me. It's around the same price so would be good, hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huga Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Do you use the 17 end of the 17-70 at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 not a lot I don't think, I'm going to check my photos in lightroom to see how often I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now