Second the Sigma 24-70 (iv'e got the non HSM model) as ever does depend on whether or not its a good example
Fortunately mine is and very pleased with it indeed, big old lump though and if you like filters the 82mm is rather pricy I believe
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 always gets good reviews and they have just released an image stabilised version, might tickle my fancy I reckon
I had the sigma 24-70 non HSM and thought it was a good sharp lens. You couldn't expect great results at f2.8 of course, but very good from F4 on. Then I bought a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and wide open it is as good as the Sigma at f5.6. It is too heavy and too expensive to accompany me on the bike though...
IS or VR works well when your subject is still but you cant beat a large aperture for low light work. Your 50mm prime may not be wide enough for use in forests as you need to be pretty close or trees become an issue (try a 35mm maybe).
The nikon 18-200 was a great one lens does it all solution, and gives good images, only letting it down by being a little slow in low light for moving subjects. good mtb lens if you are outdoors, not great in trees.
One last thing, I dropped my sigma 24-70 f2.8 and it came back a much better lens from Sigma's service and repair centre. Maybe send your 17-70 for some TLC?
Just to say I have the 18-55IS lens and the 17-85IS. I have also had the 18-55 non IS lens as well. Far and away my favourite is the 18-55IS on my 500D. Really nice crisp images and it is very light (about half the weight of the 17-85) which is great for walking and biking. Highly recommended.
HA! Looks like I'm gonna downgade my lens and buy a flash then. Thanks for saving me a heap of cash chaps!
Anybody want a Sigma 17-70? Seriously.
I only carry an EFS 10-22 when I ride. Not found much use for big zooms but then I prefer to get right in there. Shooting at 10mm does mean you've got to let the rider come within about 30cm of you to get a good shot, so you need to trust your subjects! lol
anotherdeadhero did actually almost ride into me at the bike fest in this shot.
Anybody want a Sigma 17-70? Seriously.
A bit hasty there, ignore me. 
I'd agree with the comment about cropping to achieve the required image. For biking photos I want to share, I spend quite a bit of time cropping and manipulating the image to get the effect I'm after. The critical points then become making sure it's in focus (easier said than done) and the shutter speed is fast enough to avoid unwanted blurring.
I've a Nikon D90 which I use an 18-200mm lens, and add a 10.5mm fisheye when I want that effect. I've also started taking the big flashgun out with me too. Whilst that lot is quite heavy, I can ditch my tool kit on group rides so it's not too bad!
PP - if your selling the 17-70, email me with a price as i'm on the lookout for one. Can i just add that buying a cheap canon 18-55 IS would be not much use because you can't use IS to stop action (which im guessing you'll want for MTB shots). IS only prevents camera shake with still subjects. Maybe the problem could be that the sigma 17-70 only has an f2.8 at 17mm? so when you zoom in to 70mm you're not getting enough light into the lens to stop the action? What with winter coming up and maybe being under trees and forests where its dark i would be looking at something with a mid zoom and a constant 2.8, and maybe an off camera flash as well.
I've got a 17-70mm 2.8 I must say that i've never found a problem with it's sharpness. It's within a gnatts whisker of being as sharp as my 70-200 F4L and my 50mm prime. Certainly once you've stopped down to 5.6 there is nothing in it...
That being said, that particular sigma model is a bit notorius for being of variable quality. I made sure I tested it in the shop before handing over the readys. Doesn't help you tho I guess!
If I could afford it I would buy some 2.8 or better lenses for my camera. I take low light music venues (pubs/clubs) and would love to have some faster lenses.
a sample of my stuff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/beaconrun/sets/72157621875477217/
You can buy my Siggy 24-70mm for a couple of hundred quid, been thinking about buying something posh like a 24-105L for a while
Nice example, sharp and in good nick with constant f2.8 throughout the range
Personally I would never buy a superzoom as 18-200mm, also its only for 1.6x sensors? If you have any plans in the future to upgrade to full frame, would stick to EF lenses.
If you want sharpness, stick to prime lenses, maybe L range if you get a full frame body and a lot of spare cash
Now Peter is sorted, and we are on a bit of a lens love-in, has any body got (or know of) a Canon 100-400 thats for sale?
I've been looking for a while and haven't found one.
Cheers
I have a 100-400 and to be totally honest, it isnt worth the money, i would now buy a sigma 120-400 as it is as sharp as the Canon but about half the price, the only thing is my Canon 1.4 converter wouldn't work on it.
I also have the 70-200 2.8L IS and that is an outstanding lens in every sense!
The 70-300 IS USM is aparently an 'L' in disguise.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
