|
|
Post by El Sid on Jun 30, 2023 12:06:21 GMT
I have a fair number of Sigmas including two versions of the 10-20mm, the 18-70mm and a 28-70 f2.8 all of which are fine and work with all the cameras I have. I also have a fair few older Sigmas in Canon fit which, as I have mentioned before, before only work with my D30 and older film bodies. Image quality wise most of them are pretty decent though I did have issues with the first 10-20mm I bought which Sigma replaced under warranty.
I currently have 3 Tamron lenses, an old 200-400 zoom, an 18-270mm superzoom and a 10-24mm zoom. The 200-400 is a bit soft wide open but not too bad stopped down a bit. The superzoom is pretty much as you'd expect; it distorts a fair bit at the wide end, is a bit soft beyond 200m and acceptable in between - it's mostly used as a walkabout lens for when I don't want/need the full kit with me. The 10-24 was a nice lens but sadly the AF died and couldn't be fixed, it still works in manual which is why I still have it somewhere...
Never had a Tokina though.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Jun 30, 2023 12:25:55 GMT
I've 2 or 3 non-SP Tamron telezooms from the 70s that cane with various cameras. They're not great even by the standard of their time. I've also got an 18-200 in Canon EF-M fit - build quality is decent, but it's relaticely big and heavy for the little EOS M cameras, and although it's not terrible, it's nothing special optically - Canon's 18-150 is better, smaller and lighter. Tokina, I had the AT-X 28-70 f2.8 (not the Angenieux version) and the 80-409. Neither of those pulled up any trees. I've got the old version of the modern SZX 400mm mirror, which is pretty good for a mirror, and tiny. Sigma - I had the old, cheap 24-50, which fell apart. Replaced it with a 24-70, on which the aperture motor failed several times. Neither was optically very special.i also had the 18mm f3.5 and the 70-300 UC APO, both of which were nicely made and respectable performers, but be ame unusable on later model cameras. I've got a 12-24, still the widest non-fisheye full frame lens I own, and a 70-200 f2.8 EX, which is a little soft wide open, but near the quality of similar marque lenses elsewhere. I've also a couple of othe 70-300s, one in Canon fit, one Nikon. Not used the latter, bit the Canon version is pretty poor. And then I've got the 16mm f1 4 and 56mm f1.4 for Canon EF-M. These are excellent. Forgot my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 which was OK - not actually sure what happened to that, not seen it for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Jun 30, 2023 16:47:22 GMT
I only have one non-Canon lens and that's a Sigma 105mm macro. It works a treat on my R7 with an adapter despite it being a 8 year old lens. The only thing I can't do on the R7 is use the Canon EF 1.4x extender with it, which worked fine on my old 7d2.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrochemist on Jun 30, 2023 17:08:48 GMT
I have an irrational desire to re acquire a Tamron 35-70 Adaptal 2 and a Yashica FR to replace the ones lost by an ex girlfriend more than thirty years ago, the thing is I don't know what version the Tamron was which is rather annoying. There were only two versions of adaptall 2 35-70mm lenses, the model 09a which is variable aperture (f3.5-4.5) and the slightly shorter but heavier model 17a which was a constant f3.5 design. Both were fairly similar optically being based on the SP 35-80 (model 01A). It seems there were 3 cosmetic versions of the 17a but the optics for these were the same. I'd expect the design of the zoom ring would enable you to work out if it was the 09a or 17a you had both are a little unusual. www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/17A.htmlI always liked the adaptall 2 lenses, especially the SP models  |
|
|
|
Post by davem399 on Jul 1, 2023 11:55:03 GMT
I’ve got the Sigma 10-20mm, f4-5.6 crop lens from around 2007ish. It works on later DSLRs such as my Nikon D750, Nikon 1 V2 mirrorless and Nikon Z bodies without any apparent issues, which isn’t always the case with Sigmas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Jul 1, 2023 15:27:25 GMT
I’ve got the Sigma 10-20mm, f4-5.6 crop lens from around 2007ish. It works on later DSLRs such as my Nikon D750, Nikon 1 V2 mirrorless and Nikon Z bodies without any apparent issues, which isn’t always the case with Sigmas. I purchased a Sigma 10-20 like yours in 2009, in 'as new' condition for £270 when the new ones were £370 (so, by a significant margin, making it the most expensive second hand lens I've ever purchased). It is still in very good condition, and now sells for as little as £80 in Canon and Nikon fittings. Since mine is a Pentax K mount it may be worth a little more (since fewer are available). Mine has proved so good that I consistently recommend this lens to anybody wanting a wide angle lens for an APS-C body. I have a circular ND graduated filter that is used for all my outside shots (so 99.9% of them), and I have had a decently sharp 40x50 cm print made from a cropped landscape shot, as well as some 50x75 cm prints from the whole image (with a 16 megapixel camera body). I usually work at F8 - F11, which is not surprisingly best for optimum image quality. On the AP Forum, a beginner once asked about a camera for landscape photography, and said that she wanted to shoot wide angle shots, on a very tight budget. My advice was to look for one of these lenses in Nikon or Canon mount (to get the best choice and prices), and then buy the most recent model Nikon or Canon APC-S DSLR body she could find with what was left of her budget. My point was that, if she could afford a better camera body later, she could still use the same lens. It was the quality of this lens that encouraged me to later buy the old model 17-70, the 50 mm macro and the 30 mm F1.4. But, as with the 10-20, reading independent reviews first. Those on the Pentax Forum website have been consistently helpful and reliable. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jul 1, 2023 15:28:53 GMT
I’ve got the Sigma 10-20mm, f4-5.6 crop lens from around 2007ish. It works on later DSLRs such as my Nikon D750, Nikon 1 V2 mirrorless and Nikon Z bodies without any apparent issues, which isn’t always the case with Sigmas. As I said, it is a lottery, I could go out and buy a similar lens tomorrow and have a very different experience. |
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Jul 3, 2023 8:25:01 GMT
I have an irrational desire to re acquire a Tamron 35-70 Adaptal 2 and a Yashica FR to replace the ones lost by an ex girlfriend more than thirty years ago, the thing is I don't know what version the Tamron was which is rather annoying. There were only two versions of adaptall 2 35-70mm lenses, the model 09a which is variable aperture (f3.5-4.5) and the slightly shorter but heavier model 17a which was a constant f3.5 design. Both were fairly similar optically being based on the SP 35-80 (model 01A). It seems there were 3 cosmetic versions of the 17a but the optics for these were the same. I'd expect the design of the zoom ring would enable you to work out if it was the 09a or 17a you had both are a little unusual. www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/17A.htmlI always liked the adaptall 2 lenses, especially the SP models It looks to have been a 09a which was replaced by the 17a a year or so before I got my lens, I can only assume that I bought the older lens at a discounted price. Looks like I should be able to get either version in good condition for about £30 delivered. |
|
|
|
Post by velocette on Jul 5, 2023 9:54:35 GMT
I used a number of Tamron lenses with my Canon A series cameras and were pleased with the results however that was before pixel peeping was available. With Digital I have, again for Canon three Sigma's a cheap 80-300 which is, cheap but usable and an early 105 which is very good plus an early 17-70 my go too lens which is very reasonable. I'd happily buy a later stabilised 17-70 if I could find one as it just seems to fit my varied requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jul 5, 2023 10:42:06 GMT
I used a number of Tamron lenses with my Canon A series cameras and were pleased with the results however that was before pixel peeping was available. With Digital I have, again for Canon three Sigma's a cheap 80-300 which is, cheap but usable and an early 105 which is very good plus an early 17-70 my go too lens which is very reasonable. I'd happily buy a later stabilised 17-70 if I could find one as it just seems to fit my varied requirements. Would a Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS be easier to find cheap? They were a standard kit lens for a while so I guess there should be lots around. |
|
|
|
Post by El Sid on Jul 5, 2023 11:54:57 GMT
I used a number of Tamron lenses with my Canon A series cameras and were pleased with the results however that was before pixel peeping was available. With Digital I have, again for Canon three Sigma's a cheap 80-300 which is, cheap but usable and an early 105 which is very good plus an early 17-70 my go too lens which is very reasonable. I'd happily buy a later stabilised 17-70 if I could find one as it just seems to fit my varied requirements. Would a Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS be easier to find cheap? They were a standard kit lens for a while so I guess there should be lots around. I imagine there are lots of 17-85s about but there can be issues as it's known to have a problem with the AF - the connecting cables inside can rub on part of the lens and wear through stopping the AF dead. It happened on mine a while back though to be fair it took several years to happen - nor was it particularly costly to fix. Optically I don't think it's quite as good as the 17-70 (which I also have) but it's OK. |
|
|
|
Post by dorsetmike on Jul 5, 2023 12:32:19 GMT
My first foray into interchangeable lenses was the Minolta 7000 in '85 with that I had the 50'F.8 and added a Tokina 70-400 - which I still have although the 700 was replaced by a 5D in '05 since then I've added Tamron 17-50 2.8, 90 macro, 18-250, 150-600, Tokina 11-16 2.8, and Minolta 28-75 2.8 and 70-210 2.8 (the last 4 via Ebay - I liked the idea of having wide to medium telephoto at f2.8 ) I've found no problems with any of them, not having had any Sigmas I can't comment on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixelpuffin on Jul 31, 2023 20:58:00 GMT
Not had Tokina since the film era, my lasting memory is that of painfully slow AF
Sigma scare me as virtually all reviews complain about the misfocus on the AF - yet I have the 1.4 ef-m triplets (16,30 & 56) all perform brilliantly. I’d like to try the 18-35 Art on my M6ii
But for me Tamron G2 series are fabulous
I currently only have 2
45/1.8vc
70-200/2.8vc
Hoping to get the wide zoom and 90mm macro (both G2)
|
|
