The End of an Era...We are Shutting Down the Messageboard
The messageboard is now in read-only mode and no new posts or topics can be created. We will leave the messageboard up for historical purposes, but you will not be able to make new posts or comment on existing ones.
We have started a Discord server and hope that you all will join us on there. Technology has changed over the years and maintaining the messageboard has become somewhat of a pain in the butt and Discord offers many features for users, the main one being a very polished mobile app.
We really hope you all will join us on Discord and think you will like the platform. Use the invite link below to join.
https://discord.gg/skisoutheast
The messageboard is now in read-only mode and no new posts or topics can be created. We will leave the messageboard up for historical purposes, but you will not be able to make new posts or comment on existing ones.
We have started a Discord server and hope that you all will join us on there. Technology has changed over the years and maintaining the messageboard has become somewhat of a pain in the butt and Discord offers many features for users, the main one being a very polished mobile app.
We really hope you all will join us on Discord and think you will like the platform. Use the invite link below to join.
https://discord.gg/skisoutheast
Pics from today- Mtn biking solo at Devil's Backbone
-
jbc28
- Expert
- Posts: 6156
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:27 pm
killglobalwarmingnow;177454 wrote:
nice pics, but why waste money on DX lenses?
Because a good full frame lens will run at least $1k, and there will always be a market for crop sensor bodies. One only has to look at the explosion of the entry level dslr market to see that. FX will not replace DX....at least not in the next 5-10 years.
-
KneeDeep
- Expert
- Posts: 4814
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:50 pm
I'm not sure what you're talking about with "DX lenses", but I'm pretty sure the Sigma 10-20 isn't one. I have a Canon, and as far as I can tell, DX is for Nikon.
Plus, the Sigma has just as good reviews and is damn close in the "tests" as the Canon 10-22 and is significantly cheaper. I'm only using the lens for my honeymoon and then I'm going to sell it- so in essence, I'm renting it for free. I wouldn't call that wasting money.
Plus, the Sigma has just as good reviews and is damn close in the "tests" as the Canon 10-22 and is significantly cheaper. I'm only using the lens for my honeymoon and then I'm going to sell it- so in essence, I'm renting it for free. I wouldn't call that wasting money.
-
Murphy
- Beginner
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:41 am
@KneeDeep 177467 wrote:Heh... unfortunately, you're 3rd in line. If the other two guys back out, I'll keep you in mind.
Worth a shot.
How do you like the quality of the Sigma? Do the high res versions look sharp? I still use the crappy kit lens that came with my camera (XTi) for 80% of my shots.
Worth a shot.
How do you like the quality of the Sigma? Do the high res versions look sharp? I still use the crappy kit lens that came with my camera (XTi) for 80% of my shots.
-
jbc28
- Expert
- Posts: 6156
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:27 pm
Murphy;177498 wrote:
Worth a shot.
How do you like the quality of the Sigma? Do the high res versions look sharp? I still use the crappy kit lens that came with my camera (XTi) for 80% of my shots.
My $.02....I have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8, and it is a good lens. It is very sharp from 3.2 and up. 2.8 is a little soft depending on the focal range. Not nowhere near as good as the Nikkor version, but it was $300 not $1,300. The 10-20 has a really good rep too for an affordable lens. With any Sigma lens I was suggest buying one in a store, not online. Sigma quality control is not the best, and the copies of the lenses seem to vary a lot. It could take a few exchanges before you got a good one....especially if your luck is like mine.:rolleyes: