i cant decide whether to get this lens or tokina 11-16mm dx2 or the canon 17-40mm f/4 for my 70D???
768835
It depends on what you're shooting. I've owned both. If you're shooting landscapes and the like get the Tokina. If you're shooting nightlife, portrait etc get this lens.
768836
Totally depends on what want to do with it. All I can say is 18-35 mm on a crop frame gives u wide angle and portrait and all that at a constant f stop of 1.8....Its a super awesome lens
768837
Depends if you plan on ever switching to full frame. I find 17-18mm the widest I normally go since I shoot people and too wide isn't flattering. If you are shooting landscapes then any of these will do since you want to stop down the aperture anyway. I love the 18-35mm sigma, I get the isolation from the blur that I need to create my artistic images. I never take it off anymore.
768838
I have all 3 lens and the sigma is the sharpest of them all! I've been using this lens on my black magic cinema camera and it's now my main lens! The price is well worth it and I recommend it out of the 3!
465323
The 10-22 on you 70D is going to closely match the 17-40 range after adjusting for crop. It really is a personal choice. I stayed away from EF-S lenses because I knew I would eventually get a full frame camera, but if you really need the ultra wide of 16mm the the 10-23 is the only thing to get you there.
943019
I have used the 17-55 canon and own the Sigma 17-50, use it all the time, very sharp! You will love it, it is my walk around lens.
108982
The Contemporary version according to "http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-17-70mm-f2-8-4-os-hsm" is smaller, lighter, and uses revised optics compared to the old version which is why I choose this contemporary version. I use it on a Rebel T3i and I am very happy with the results.
354393
I bought it to replace the 14-42 that was damaged. 17mm is included in the range of the original lens. It also is f2.8 over the f3.5.GeneK
238363
I have the 70D with the 18-135 STM lens and find its a perfect all around lens, clear and sharp. Focuses perfect and fast and completely silent for videoing. You can't go wrong with this lens.
1313304
I have owned both and they are great lenses with fantastic results. The Tokina will increase in length as you change focus, whereas the Sigma moves the glass when focusing within the body of the lens. If you plan to shoot insects or really up close, you may prefer to go with the Sigma (as I did). Another reason to go with the Sigma over the Tokina is if you plan to use a lens-mounted ring flash or similar. Although you can use these on the Tokina, I was concerned about extra stress on the plastic part of the lens that extends. Otherwise, you can't go wrong either way. I suggest visiting your local photography store that has these in stock to test out, or renting the lenses to try out and see which one you like before purchasing from Amazon. Good luck!
2240578
I have had the 17-85 for a couple months and i already want to upgrade.. i want to sell it. i want the 17-40 f4 really bad. i would say unless dont mind about pictures that lack somewhat sharpness i would go with the 17-40. the 17-85 is hard to use i think.. of course unless you want mine ide sell it to you :)
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
692071
the dx unless you plan on moving up to a full frame camera in the future. if you're not going to go full frame don't waste the $ on the fx lens. I have both these lenses, the dx I got first when I first started out, then recently the fx when I got a full frame camera. I've used the fx version on my d7000 (dx body) and honestly I see no real difference between the dx and fx lens on a dx body. even after pixel peeping quite a bit I was really at a loss as to which one was better, they both looked really good.
1272577
For a general walk-around lens on a crop camera like the Rebels or 40D, etc, I find that 28mm is just too limited in terms of wide angle. Not very good for shooting a room full of people either. 28mm isn't too bad if you're ONLY shooting people. My recommendation would be to go for the 17-50 and get an image stabilized telephoto for longer shots like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS.
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
1625586
Thanks for your advice. Aperture would normally win with me also, but there's also the price difference to consider. I'm considering the Canon 10-22 mm, too, which is about the same price as the Tokina 11-16; that has the additional advantage of being much lighter, too. I'm really finding it very hard to make up my mind.
41290
I have both lenses and prefer the 12MM. It is faster, and produces a sharper image. I especially like the depth of field markers that appear when the focus ring is snapped back into manual mode. I use both, and favor the 17MM when I want to carry the camera in my pocket, but tend to keep the 12MM on the camera most of the time.
928326
If you meant a D600, then that's a great lens and I'd definitely recommend it. Also look at the 14-24 if that's within your budget and you don't need to use filters.If you actually meant D60, then this lens would not make sense to use on your camera unless you're planning to move to full frame soon. 16mm isn't very wide on DX and f4 isn't anything special. If you are going to stick with a Dx sized sensor long-term, then I would look at the new Sigma 18-35 for a similar zoom range with the huge bonus of a 1.8 aperture. The 17-55 Nikon is also good but it's getting old. If you're looking for an ultrawide for DX, take a look at the Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24. If you meant a D600, then that's a great lens and I'd definitely recommend it. Also look at the 14-24 if that's within your budget and you don't need to use filters.If you actually meant D60, then this lens would not make sense to use on your camera unless you're planning to move to full frame soon. 16mm isn't very wide on DX and f4 isn't anything special. If you are going to stick with a Dx sized sensor long-term, then I would look at the new Sigma 18-35 for a similar zoom range with the huge bonus of a 1.8 aperture. The 17-55 Nikon is also good but it's getting old. If you're... » Read More If you meant a D600, then that's a great lens and I'd definitely recommend it. Also look at the 14-24 if that's within your budget and you don't need to use filters.If you actually meant D60, then this lens would not make sense to use on your camera unless you're planning to move to full frame soon. 16mm isn't very wide on DX and f4 isn't anything special. If you are going to stick with a Dx sized sensor long-term, then I would look at the new Sigma 18-35 for a similar zoom range with the huge bonus of a 1.8 aperture. The 17-55 Nikon is also good but it's getting old. If you're looking for an ultrawide for DX, take a look at the Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24. « Show Less
137017
Honestly, there are some available on ebay with buyer protection (but I understand why you would want to get it from the above places instead). The 70-200mm is a great lens, but if you have your heart set on this particular lens you should wait to get this one :)I just ordered one from ebay but I did my research on the seller first.
642997
Id say pick the 17-35 if you intend to stay on DX size for another 5yrs... the 50mm covers the middle of the 24-70 so moving your feet will cover that distance, but the 17-35 will allow for group shots and landscapes/buildings... the 24 will limit that somewhat.... my2cents!