Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 stjålet. Alternativer for nykjøp

[Crazysteps]

Etter litt søking på nettet:

 

I now have the 17-55 2.8 IS and I rarely use 17mm, although it's nice to have when you need it. I can say this optic is shockingly sharp wide open, IS is extraordinary, AF is ultra fast and the range is ideal for travel and walkaround. It is bulky and heavy but the quality and flexibily of the fast aperture and IS is hard to beat. I use it on a 20D and would guess it would be rather front heavy on a 400D.

 

If you're looking for a smaller optic and won't miss IS and silent 'n fast USM AF, you might consider the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Its said to be in the same ball park as the EF 17-55 2.8 IS at half the price. I tried one before buying the Canon and almost bought one. It was half the size but AF was slow and noisy, so you get what you pay for. The big thing that bugged me was the lack of a clutch to disengage the MF ring. Watch those fingers

 

wiki:

Praise

It is praised as "one of the best general/multi-purpose lenses available",[1][2] and ideal for available light photography on a Canon APS-C camera.[3]

 

The fast f/2.8 aperture, combined with 3-stop Image Stabilization, makes the 17-55 much faster (5 stops) than an un-stabilized f/3.5–5.6 Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens, which is a frequent kit lens, and thus the 17-55 is much more suited for hand-holding and available light photography, and it is a practical event photography lens.

 

 

Criticisms

This lens is widely regarded as being prone to flare when used without a hood,[2] and especially with low-quality UV filters.

 

The 17-55 suffers from vignetting at f/2.8 of 0.5-1 EV throughout the focal range.[4][3]

 

Chromatic aberration is a relative weakness at the wide end (at the edges and corners),[3] but is quite low for a zoom in this range.[4]

 

Some[5] but not all[2] users have reported the lens gathering a lot of dust inside of it, a problem that Canon has apparently acknowledged.

 

 

Quality

The 17-55 is not an L-series lens, but it has some UD (ultra-low dispersion) lens elements, which are largely reserved for L-series lenses, and some say that the 17-55 has comparable image quality to L-series lenses.[4][6] Some regard the decision to not designate the lens as L-class as marketing-driven.[4]

 

"The resolution figures are among the very best seen so far for an APS-C standard zoom lens."[4]

 

The build quality is inferior to L-series lenses (plastic body, not magnesium alloy), though superior to the EF-S 17-85mm.

 

Alternatives

The 17-55 is at times compared to the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, which has similar image quality (despite the latter being L series and the 17-55 not being so designated), and is cheaper, though the 17-55's faster aperture and IS make it more suited (by 4 stops) for hand-holding and available light photography.

Endret 12. april 2008 av Crazysteps

[andm]

Dette objektivet er fantastisk! Fant det brukt (som nytt) til kr 4500, og det var et bra kjøp. Jeg tror ikke jeg skal selge denne herligheten noensinne. Jeg tror ikke du kan slå feil, men nypris er noe stiv.

[Crazysteps]

Dette objektivet er fantastisk! Fant det brukt (som nytt) til kr 4500, og det var et bra kjøp. Jeg tror ikke jeg skal selge denne herligheten noensinne. Jeg tror ikke du kan slå feil, men nypris er noe stiv.

Høres bra ut. Tror jeg har bestemt meg.

 

Nyprisen blir pyntet på ved å få familie til å ta med hjem fra USA.

Ca 5500 ink solskjerm og et godt UV-filter.

 

Hvordan står det ilt med tidligere nevnte støvproblem for deg?

[andm]

Støvproblem? Det er bare noe jeg har lest om. Jeg ser ikke et fnugg (objektivet er jo over halvannet år gammelt nå), og jeg hadde ikke brydd meg stort heller.