Standard zoom lenses from third parties

Hi all,

I am actually a Minolta owner, so excuse this cross-post, but I need a broader forum to make my mind as to what standard zoom I will take with me to India next week.

Since it is intended for a backpacking trip, I need a reasonable quality standard zoom lens that covers a useful reach to save on lens switches.

I've had the Sigma 18-125 for a couple of months now and am quite disappointed of it. As a semi-novice it's hard to tell if it is colors or sharpness, but something just seems to be lacking in this lens. A certain "wow" is missing from the images it produces in comparance to classical Minolta lenses I have for other ranges.

So I am looking at several third party lenses for this range, and especially at the Sigma and Tamron 24-135, and the Sigma 17-70. I am not looking into the sigma EX series as the weight is a bit too much for travel.

Any insight about the colors/bokeh and especially sharpness of these lenses in comparance to my current Sigma 18-125?

Any other ideas for third party lenses in this zoom range?

Thanks!

If you are concerned about quality, you probably should be looking at the Sigma EX range, although some like the 24-70 f2.8 are huge others such as the 24-60 f2.8 or the 18-50 f2.8 are reasonable for size and get quite good comments from users.

Jeff

assafb said:

Any insight about the colors/bokeh and especially sharpness of
these lenses in comparance to my current Sigma 18-125?

Click to expand...

I do not have the Sigma 18-125, but I am very happy with the Tamron 28-75/2.8

I also have the Tamron 17-50/2.8, but you mentioned backpacking and I presume that the 28-75mm range might be more useful.

Both are quite small and light and take 67mm filters, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a full frame lens, the 17-50/2.8 is a DX one. I think the 28-75 has mre uniform sharpness across the frame (better for scenics), but the 17-50/2.8 is sharper in the center.

I use the 28-75/2.8 as a people (portraits) lens and the 17-50/2.8 as an event lens (including weddings

--
Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

Have the Sigma 24-70f2.8 EX in Sigma mount...HUGE lens! Not as sharp as my Nikon G 24-85f3.5 which is 1/2 it's size also. I used to own a Sigma 28-70 f2.8 in Nikon mount briefly, mine was a dog. I still use the G lens I like it.
Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd

As I said, I am a minolta owner.

That's why I asked you guys' opinion about third party lenses

So if the 3rd party options I mentioned were available to you, which would you choose to "upgrade" the 18-125?

I use the Sigma EX 24~60 for travel. It is quite compact and well built, constant f2.8, and takes 77mm filters (I only have 77mm or 52mm filters and don't want to buy more). You might think the range is limiting, but I rarely find it to be a problem (I don't expect to be taking pictures of birds or small animals on a trip).

I LOVE my Tamron 28-75, amazed how much it stays on my camera. I took this of my daughter just the other day:



--
http://marieboyer.smugmug.com/

yes the 18-50 2.8 sigma is a good lense for the price. it has a slight yellow cast but I don't mind too much. some people complain about the finish but that isn't an issue to me either. I am not so happy about the lens hood and end up using my hand to prevent flares. you sure will notice differences to primes in image quality but for a general purpose lense the sigma will do fine and last you a while.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengston

I have a good copy of the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8; I paid only US$350++ for it and I'm happy with its performance over all.

When you say you've got a good copy, you mean that even this 2.8 EX has sigma's disease of good and bad copies?

I don't have any third party lenses, but hope you find these lens review links useful:

http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/nikonlinkslensesreview3rdpartylensessortedbybrandandmodel01.htm

http://www.photodo.com/category_2.html

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2
--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

assafb said:

When you say you've got a good copy, you mean that even this 2.8 EX
has sigma's disease of good and bad copies?

Click to expand...

Sigma has always had variable quality issues with production. Especially, the f2.8 midzoom EX lenses. The 30mm F1.4 also have some quality issues.

I used this lens earlier in a bday party

assafb said:

I am actually a Minolta owner, so excuse this cross-post, but I
need a broader forum to make my mind as to what standard zoom I
will take with me to India next week.

Click to expand...

One thing to think about as you are getting opinions. Some lens manufacturers may do better on different brands of cameras. For example both LensCo 1 & 2 makes lenses for 4 different brands of cameras. However LensCo 1 could be better on Cameras 1 & 2 while LensCo 2 is better for Cameras 3 & 4,

However, you should get good general information this way.
--
-----Bear

I have the Sigma 17-70 and 10-20. I have been pleased with both, I will use both these lenses on my trip to Hawaii. The 10-20 width is great for landscapes and the 17-70 worked well for me as a wedding, all purpose lens. The price point is terrific, but they are not primes and they should not be confused with lenses that cost 2-3 x as much. I do believe you get what you pay for. One review ephotzone ( i think) stated that the 17-70 is a very good lens, sometimes great that will serve you well. In canada my 10-20 has a 10 year warrenty, that sealed the deal for me
Dave
--
Loving the learning, enjoying the ride...
Nikon D50, Sigma 17-70 MacroF2.8-4.5, Sigma 10-20, SB 800
http://www.pbase.com/tameria11