Dear all,
Thank you so much for your kind recommendations. I do apologise - been away for a while, so here's my reply!
I was actually considering the lens because of the following:
1. Bad publicity of the kit lens, which I partly agreed with. (Indeed, it didn't perform up to my expectations of a DSLR lens, but still, it's serviceable enough for most occasions, but only serviceable.) The macro wasn't great (in fact it was non-existent), and I could've been a bit happier with a slightly faster lens too. Also, it's a bit too light, and coupled with the light camera body, it didn't inspire much confidence while shooting.
2. I needed something just a bit wider (perhaps I should have waited for the Tamron 16-50!) and eventually settled on the Sigma 17-70. 1mm doesn't really make a difference, I know, but hey it's still a difference.
3. I wanted sharp out-of-camera pics (preferably not with +7 in-camera sharpness setting which will lead to JPEG artefacts) and the kit lens simply didn't cut it! The Sigma I'd say performs much better in this aspect, and colour rendition seems to be better than the kit lens as well.
That said, the kit lens is still a keeper. It'd make up for those times when I don't really need the quality (say, for small blog pictures, etc) and when I need a lightweight lens and portability. Again, makes for a serviceable (but not great) back-up lens.
Anyhow, I've bought the 17-70 from a guy called judeseah, nice chap. From what it seems, the CA and distortion isn't as bad as the kit, and like I mentioned, the sharpness is there too. Yet. I haven't had too much of a chance to play around it very much yet, so my comments might just be the result of me self-justifying the purchase! Will be going to California for quite a while, so it'll definitely serve me there.
I second the comments made by quite a few - it's not so much about the equipment but also the photographer. Will continue to hone my (currently amateurish) skills.
Cheers, and thanks!
Hann
www.hannisms.blogspot.com
Thank you so much for your kind recommendations. I do apologise - been away for a while, so here's my reply!
I was actually considering the lens because of the following:
1. Bad publicity of the kit lens, which I partly agreed with. (Indeed, it didn't perform up to my expectations of a DSLR lens, but still, it's serviceable enough for most occasions, but only serviceable.) The macro wasn't great (in fact it was non-existent), and I could've been a bit happier with a slightly faster lens too. Also, it's a bit too light, and coupled with the light camera body, it didn't inspire much confidence while shooting.
2. I needed something just a bit wider (perhaps I should have waited for the Tamron 16-50!) and eventually settled on the Sigma 17-70. 1mm doesn't really make a difference, I know, but hey it's still a difference.
3. I wanted sharp out-of-camera pics (preferably not with +7 in-camera sharpness setting which will lead to JPEG artefacts) and the kit lens simply didn't cut it! The Sigma I'd say performs much better in this aspect, and colour rendition seems to be better than the kit lens as well.
That said, the kit lens is still a keeper. It'd make up for those times when I don't really need the quality (say, for small blog pictures, etc) and when I need a lightweight lens and portability. Again, makes for a serviceable (but not great) back-up lens.
Anyhow, I've bought the 17-70 from a guy called judeseah, nice chap. From what it seems, the CA and distortion isn't as bad as the kit, and like I mentioned, the sharpness is there too. Yet. I haven't had too much of a chance to play around it very much yet, so my comments might just be the result of me self-justifying the purchase! Will be going to California for quite a while, so it'll definitely serve me there.
I second the comments made by quite a few - it's not so much about the equipment but also the photographer. Will continue to hone my (currently amateurish) skills.
Cheers, and thanks!
Hann
www.hannisms.blogspot.com
