sigma af 24-70 f/2.8 ex dg macro lens what the difference between the two sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ex dg macro lens
160523
I wasn't aware Sigma made this same lens in a "macro" version? Becarefull believing the discriptions as some "used" products are misrepresented. Any how, macro will allow for a shorter minimum focus distance. Good luck
160524
The af designates an auto focus lens, which has a motor that receives a signal from the camera and will focus automatically.
1927314
I use two lenses for most of my work although I do have a number of other lenses for special tasks such as macro. for most of my landscapes I use a Sigma 18-250 macro lens. It's very versatile and give me photos with little chromatic aberrations. It's fairly fast at F3.5 and the nice thing is I can keep it on the camera 75% of the time. The other lens I use a lot it the Sigma 150-500 Auto focus. It's great for shooting wild life shot such as song birds near a bird feeder or a bear you don't want to get too close to. I have other lenses I use also but nearly as often as I use these two. Don
608749
I've owned both. For the obvious, the 17-70 has a more useful FL, while the 17-50 has the constant f/2.8 throughout its range. Physically, the 17-70 takes 72mm filter vs 77mm filters, the weight is lighter by 20% (470g vs 565g) and its a smaller lens which may balance on your APS-C camera better (79mm x 82mm vs 84mm x 92mm). The 17-70 will give you also a psuedo-macro capability at a 1:2.9, which is rather useful. Personally, another point to note (and I've substantiated this myself after coming across it in a few Google blurbs) is that 17mm on the 17-50 is REALLY not 17mm, but 18mm when looked at closely. May not be a deal breaker, but to some it is and the lens really is, in practice, an 18-50 lens. I found the color rendition of the two lenses to be similar (lovely, in fact) and I find the 17-70 to be sharper across the frame at 50mm than the 17-50 is, which is not surprising as that's the farthest reach of the 17-50's FL and it's expected to suffer a tad there. If you haven personally used the new Sigma Contemporary and Art series lenses, I suggest you give them a try. Excellent materials, tight tolerances, well made. I ended up keeping the 17-70f/2.8-4 C and selling the 17-50 f/2.8. I have f/1.8primes to cover the need for low light shooting should it arise, and the extra FL is more important to me
2043803
The main difference appears to be the aperture. The f/2.8 will work better in lower light giving you at least an extra stop of light to play with. This means shorter exposures in lower light than the f/4-5.6.
1566272
The Sigma 17-70 OS lens is designed to be used on DX format cameras. It will only function on FX format when that camera is in DX crop mode. As an owner of both the D7000 and D700, I can say that this lens vignettes very badly on FX. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 lens, on the other hand, will work on the D700 at 15-16mm with little or no vignetting, and it's sharp as a tack. There are a few others that work this way - I believe the 12-24 f4 Tokina and a couple of Nikon wide angle DX lenses will also do this. Unfortunately, the Sigma 17-70 is not one that will work the way you want it to on a FX format camera. The Sigma 17-70 OS lens is designed to be used on DX format cameras. It will only function on FX format when that camera is in DX crop mode. As an owner of both the D7000 and D700, I can say that this lens vignettes very badly on FX. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 lens, on the other hand, will work on the D700 at 15-16mm with little or no vignetting, and it's sharp as a tack. There are a few others that work this way - I believe the 12-24 f4 Tokina and a couple of Nikon wide angle DX lenses will also do this. Unfortunately, the Sigma 17-70 is not one that will work the way you want it to on a FX... » Read More The Sigma 17-70 OS lens is designed to be used on DX format cameras. It will only function on FX format when that camera is in DX crop mode. As an owner of both the D7000 and D700, I can say that this lens vignettes very badly on FX. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 lens, on the other hand, will work on the D700 at 15-16mm with little or no vignetting, and it's sharp as a tack. There are a few others that work this way - I believe the 12-24 f4 Tokina and a couple of Nikon wide angle DX lenses will also do this. Unfortunately, the Sigma 17-70 is not one that will work the way you want it to on a FX format camera. « Show Less
1181727
No.. the macro part is a positive diopter lense while the fisheye section is a negative diopter. Together it is like looking through a telescope backwards. The macro section can be used alone for close shots but there's a lot of distortion (not always bad) and can be fun artistically.
2024381
I don't have both for a one on one comparison of the image quality, but the 35mm f2.8 macro generally has slightly better ratings. Check out the reviews on the Pentax Forums web site. The main reason I purchased it was for the macro capability. It also has metal vs plastic housing which may or may not be an issue depending on how you use it.
1915106
Correct; you unscrew the smaller lens to access the macro lens. These lenses are garbage, but to get the desired effect you have to be right on top of the subject you want the picture of.
848894
The 24-70 is generally $300-400 more than the 17-55. There is no IS in the 24-70, and it weighs 2.1 lbs almost a pound more than the 17-55. Construction build is way better w/ the 24-70 and has a wee bit longer zoom. Those are probably the only advantages it has over the 17-55. IQ look almost identical from both lenses. I would go with 17-55 mainly for the IS and lower price.
931876
24-70 f 2.8 is awesome, 70-200 f 2.8 , 85 f 1.8 . I use all 3 of these lenses, I am a professional portrait and event photographer.
1183536
I have not had a chance to compare both but this sigma is the first non canon lens I have put in my bag. Have 6 different ones and the sigma is a great value. I have not regretted it.
604837
Hi Jack - to be honest I've not had hands on with this lens. It was bought for my Son for his birthday. And from what I do know about it it is smaller and with the Macro capability - a more useful lens, also the 18-200 has less focal range then the newer Macro Lens. Seems to have pretty good reviews and as my son uses it for digital video - he's pretty happy thus far. Sorry I can't be of more help.Chuck
1565241
The non-macro version is the older model of this lens and uses 72mm filters. The macro version is the new and improved version, uses 62mm filters and is manufactured somewhat differently. I believe the new macro version is supposed to be a bit smaller overall and lighter than the older version.
933395
the biggest advantage is obviously the ability to go wide during weddings etc without missing shots or having to switch lenses. The 24mm is crisp throughout vs the softer edges in the older lens. I've also heard of some quality issues on the older lenses as well. The 35-70 won't auto focus with all cameras, depending on what you carry. Hope this helps.
1640068
From what I can tell, the cheaper version is smaller and lighter. But, I don't know if that necessarily makes it a better lens. Here is the link to sigmas page for the more expensive lens: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-ii-dc-os-hsm And here is the link to the less expensive one: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-dc-macro-os-hsm-c I have the more expensive lens, and I have used it exclusively since I bought it. I've never shot with the other one though, so I can't accurately compare one to the other.
105768
If you just want close-ups and not Macro shots get the DA*16-50 by Pentax. If you want Macro get the Sigma 70mm Macro
1646078
Both lenses are excellent and brilliantly sharp. The Sigma is less expensive. The Canon focuses more quickly, a little, no macro lenses are fast. It should come down to what focal length you want. Canon offers an IS version of the macro. The stabilization is nice if you hand hold, but doubles the price and weight.