Stacey_K

Shot handheld with D7000 and sigma 17-70 f2.8-4

You say the nikon isn't focused correctly, where IS the focus point if it's not on the tree in the center? And at f8 and 16mm the focus plane shouldn't be a huge deal anyway. Nothing in the nikon...

I knew this wouldn't be good enough. Yes I've shot the sigma wide open and it's far from a mushy mess, photozone agrees. It easily equals the 16-85 and guess what? if low light is important as you...

Yes c version.

And the corners in both of those examples are out of focus so how could sharpness in the corners at f2.8 matter?

And what's that supposed to mean.... Why do these gear discussions when some people are defending their purchase choice always turn personal?

And I can post shots showing how a 11mm lens captures a shot that would miserably fail if shot with a 16-17mm. Same with a 8mm fisheye vs an 11mm. I just can't see how 1mm of focal length is going...

I normally don't upload 12MB full size images but nothing short of full size OOC jpegs are going to end this for the pixel peepers. I'm sure even this won't for some. Anyway, here is the same shot...

When would you shoot a landscape at f2.8? O.o And if you tested this in a store at f2.8 and "one of the corners was soft" it's more likely it was simply out of the DOF. I can't imaging a real world...

Unfortunately the line to parrot has become "the sigma is soft on the wide end" and you will never convince people who don't own this lens that this myth is false.

It depends on the image. It's like film grain, sometimes it not a "problem" sometimes it was the first thing I would see looking at an image. I used to shoot mostly landscapes and noise/grain in a...

I think this newer model also has a larger working distance due to IF.

I use the f1.8G almost exclusively at f2 so have to agree that anything slower or faster isn't going to interest me. 85mm at f1.4 would have to be super shallow DOF, not what I am looking for. Plus...

Again exaggerating. It's maybe 30% more of one door, not the whole car. And I see -less- contrast with the nikon shot. Again, please post a landscape shot that would have failed being 1mm less wide...

Everyone who has used -both- lenses seems to agree. The only people in this thread saying otherwise either just own the nikon (defending their purchase choice) or own neither.

It's not even half of one of the car doors.. You mean it's 20-30% more of one of the doors? And seriously, show me ONE landscape shot you have taken that would have failed if shot 1mm less wide.

You would be wrong. At 70mm it is f5.6. And have you actually used both lenses? Do you own either of them? Or just regurgitating the "the sigma is soft on the wide end" etc from reading other...

I have the Tamron 70-300 and it's very good still at 300mm. Also the VC works very well. I do own the 80-200 2 ring and the build + bokeh is MUCH better + is faster so you can get a look you simply...

Yeah, I simply posted my personal experience with the two lenses I own and have used. The earlier one could easily be just as good.

I guess I feel in my case the extra speed outweighs this small extra width. If I was going to be shooting an expansive landscape and really needed the extra width, I'd use my 11-16 tokina instead.