Random Thread Season 24 - Forever and More.....!
- Thread starter Sion
- Start date
- Status
Never check with parisilk, but with the quotes all other shops give me. I'm pretty sure it's another lens...unless it's a grey condition 7-8/10 set (but I don't think they sell grey sets).
Currently, after much readings, I'm pretty sure that Tamron have alot of issues with low light focusing + slow inaccurate AF. Really not sure how the sigma version fare...And no lens rental shops I've seen rent this Sigma 17-50 OS lens. It would be great if can rent to try first...at least my heart won't be so confused/lost.
SurrealDreamWalker
Senior Member
I personally don't think so, as for the purpose of getting this next purchase (Tamon Non VC/Sigma 17-50) is for low light shooting... *I think I need some help/advice here*
Personally, I'm not very particular about IQ (e.g. Chromatic distortion, Barrel Distortion etc) as I don't pixel peep that much (I only "peep" if I crop too much). Well, the few times I complaint about the IQ of photos is
- when using my tele zoom (55-250) on the far end (250mm) in the Singapore Zoo, where it gets really soft and the flaws of the lens starts to show (esp in lesser light. overcasts and FURRY CREATURES!). *Heck, I didn't even notice the CA on my 18-55..if there's any, probably due to the blessing that I've yet to seen a L in action*
- Too high ISO (e.g. 1600) used and the photo turned out noisy but aperture already at wide open on that lens (e.g. 18-55 @ 55mm f/5.6).
Stuffs that I've noticed for quite sometime already is, for my kit 18-55 f3.5-5.6, most/many of my shots are done at the both ends (18mm and 55mm), aperture wide open at high ISO of 800-1600. Stuffs that I shoot under these conditions are like objects/food photos in a restaurant like environment.
Many times my shots (candid shots) turn out underexposed (even @ ISO1600), this is leading me to believe that I need a lens with wider aperture as I believe that using flash will "kill" off the ambiance, still I will use my ext.flash if ambiance light is really not enough). At the same time, I find prime lens abit restrictive for my liking (that said, my only prime lens experience is with my 50 f1.8, which wasn't exactly what I would call pleasant).
Below are some examples of what I considered to be low light...
*Indoor Candle Light*
*Indoor Hotel wedding dinner table shot*
*Outdoor Night lantern*
*Outdoor Lightings*
*btw, low light landscape will not be taken into consideration for this lens, cos I will be on tripod and "any" lens that have the required focal length will do. Focusing wise, at the most MF lor...not very hard on tripod, but I find it a challenge when handholding it and MFing at the same time*
I guess the burning question now is
- do I need the f/2.8 or it's just my camera's ISO limit. My heart was pretty much going in for the Sigma 17-50 cos of the OS and f2.8. But yet at the same time confused which is the problem.
- Will the AF of Sigma "hunt" in this kind of lighting? The last thing I want is the AF keep hunting when I want to do a group photo in lighting like in shot #2
Any advices?
Last edited:
allenleonhart
Senior Member
I personally don't think so, as for the purpose of getting this next purchase (Tamon Non VC/Sigma 17-50) is for low light shooting... *I think I need some help/advice here*
Personally, I'm not very particular about IQ (e.g. Chromatic distortion, Barrel Distortion etc) as I don't pixel peep that much (I only "peep" if I crop too much). Well, the few times I complaint about the IQ of photos is
- when using my tele zoom (55-250) on the far end (250mm) in the Singapore Zoo, where it gets really soft and the flaws of the lens starts to show (esp in lesser light. overcasts and FURRY CREATURES!). *Heck, I didn't even notice the CA on my 18-55..if there's any, probably due to the blessing that I've yet to seen a L in action*
- Too high ISO (e.g. 1600) used and the photo turned out noisy but aperture already at wide open on that lens (e.g. 18-55 @ 55mm f/5.6).
Stuffs that I've noticed for quite sometime already is, for my kit 18-55 f3.5-5.6, most/many of my shots are done at the both ends (18mm and 55mm), aperture wide open at high ISO of 800-1600. Stuffs that I shoot under these conditions are like objects/food photos in a restaurant like environment.
Many times my shots (candid shots) turn out underexposed (even @ ISO1600), this is leading me to believe that I need a lens with wider aperture as I believe that using flash will "kill" off the ambiance, still I will use my ext.flash if ambiance light is really not enough). At the same time, I find prime lens abit restrictive for my liking (that said, my only prime lens experience is with my 50 f1.8, which wasn't exactly what I would call pleasant).
Below are some examples of what I considered to be low light...
*Indoor Candle Light*
*Indoor Hotel wedding dinner table shot*
*Outdoor Night lantern*
*Outdoor Lightings*
*btw, low light landscape will not be taken into consideration for this lens, cos I will be on tripod and "any" lens that have the required focal length will do. Focusing wise, at the most MF lor...not very hard on tripod, but I find it a challenge when handholding it and MFing at the same time*
I guess the burning question now is
- do I need the f/2.8 or it's just my camera's ISO limit. My heart was pretty much going in for the Sigma 17-50 cos of the OS and f2.8. But yet at the same time confused which is the problem.
- Will the AF of Sigma "hunt" in this kind of lighting? The last thing I want is the AF keep hunting when I want to do a group photo in lighting like in shot #2
Any advices?
ur iso can hit till 3200 and more what. urs is not a 450d where u are limited to 1600!
i'm currently looking at body. there is only how much u can get with 1600 at 2.8 (in my experience). sure a good lens is nice to have, but how much more light can it allow? sometimes higher iso is really the only solution apart from tripodding the shot.
The only reason why 3200 wasn't considered is the fact that it makes the picture too noisy (beyond my tolerance level) 1600 is still "fine" (within my tolerance level) when re-sized for web 1280 max width view...till I start cropping.
I think I understand that there is always a limit to what 1600 @ f2.8 can achieve. But I think probably I'm just hoping that some "magic" appears in the math formula. I wonder if this is one reason why many start picking up primes lens.
If there is a reason why I picked up Sigma 17-50 this time, I think it will be under the impression that it's AF works in low light as compared to tamron's hunting AF in similar conditions.
allenleonhart
Senior Member
perhaps perhaps.
or maybe u havent used canon's 60d/7d. at iso 3200, it still looks clean. i can do a lot of things with 3200 compared to what i'm stuck with now.
I think I'll take it easy for now and go at the lens first..since I need a replacement for my 18-55 (AF motor down)..BBB as it comes...
*Hope I get enuf savings by my time of marriage*
Thanks. As far as my eyes can tell, it's bokehlicious... Shot #1 dof is thinner than I've expected.
btw, the shots for 2,3 and 4, are they taken at Min focusing distance and uncropped?
Cool...but I guess the last bit is convincing myself to grab the Sigma over the Tamron....
*oh ya...just awhile ago, I read about the Tamron 17-50 front element dropping out -_- and diy can put back*
Last edited:
allenleonhart
Senior Member
mine did
-_-"'
Just saw this video also (for people who want to know wat's the issue with Tamron 17-50)....
[video=youtube;agpebR8EDvo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agpebR8EDvo[/video]
- Status
Similar threads
