[beebeelam]

最近係台灣一個forum講緊A16 VS sigma f/2.8 macro既比較,希望可以俾大家一個參考,內容都幾詳細,但就未知準確性,如果有高人回應,證實,小弟萬分感激!!

http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=248&t=238637&p=1

[cutter_lee]

i dunno if it's Nikon's better?? but on my canon...

I had the Sigma and sold it after two months. it's not good. the edge has poor sharpness problem

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28/index.htm

18mm/35mm/50mm edge is below 1850

The A16 is alot better in sharpness not less YELLOWish.

[Philippe]

呢個測試唔準的.佢冇考慮到A16的孤形對焦面設計,令人誤會A16的邊位解像度非常差.

http://www.pbase.com/kocho/image/71249926

[beebeelam]

你個LINK係講SIGMA上一代67MM口徑冇macro,而家新個支Sigma係72MM口徑有macro..

台灣個個人都講到sigma新既一代好d,但我就唔多知,
因為我都想試下支A16..我而家都有支sigma marco, 賣左俾fd..
如果係我想買A16,因為canon 17-55 f/2.8 is usm又好似貴左d

[beebeelam]

thx for your link, 好有用..

[cutter_lee]

Canon 17-55 2.8 IS is 6.1k on sim city 2nd floor, some ppl said.

it's still a little expensive, but i bet it'll have the best color rendition

[cutter_lee]

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28m_nikon/index.htm

72mm, that was my one i sold it after two months. seriously it's weak.

[beebeelam]

did u try A16?? i want to compare them
from the post of Philippe, the link show similar quality between A16 and sigma

i want to know which one is better?? otherwise i will sell my sigma and buy tamron
or save money to buy canon f/2.8 17-55 usm IS

[cutter_lee]

i HAVE the tamron now bebelam. for some reason i am selling it out too. cos my friend's selling his Canon 17-55 IS to me for a good price.

FOR SURE, I know the sigma is uncomparable to the Tamron or the Canon. Especially on the edges. i have some sample photos too if u wanna see them. I just dont wanna see u buying a wrong lense like I did.

I know the tamron might even have sharper images than the Canon, but my wife got shake'y hands, i had no choice....

[beebeelam]

Thx for your prompt reply.
would u mind send me the link for your sample photo??
i really want to have a look!

[yung2]

買Tamron鏡啦, 平靚正之選!
Canon果支只係靚少少少少咁多多, 同多左個is咁解,
但貴成$5000, 慳番o既錢都夠用來買支小小白或者70-300 is...
其實已有F2.8光圈, 要個is已有點多餘, 長鏡就話有is好用d啫~

[Philippe]

如果係我就會儲錢買Canon 17-55 IS.光學質素的話其實三枝鏡唔會差太遠,除非放大來聞相,否則都睇唔出.
好多人話短鏡冇防震唔重要係因為佢地目標係日光日白可以手持影相,長鏡如果冇防震有時日光日白都會有問題.
但係短鏡有IS既目標係可以在日光日白以外的低光情況時手持影相,並唔係多餘的.

[cutter_lee]

Agreed. Phillippe. IS is useful for any length.

Alot of ppl say this EF-s for that price tag is crazy, but look at Nikon's 17-55 2.8 DX. it's for aps-c but $9xxx. Of course the quality is quite good there.

Personally i would never go back for any Sigmas. I think center shaprness to me means nothing. But tamron is half the price. Might be even better edges than the Canon.....

[yung2]

f2.8都夠弱光用lu喎，隻手唔係真係震得咁勁咋嚇？

但若果你地錢多我都無話可說∼

[Philippe]

冇錯,唔好一聽到貴就話唔低,影相除左光學質素外,影唔影到更加重要.
f2.8應唔應付到弱光我諗大家心中有數,一般室內燈光如果用最廣角,iso 400,開盡f2.8光圈叫做勉勉強強應付到,有時可能仲要高小小iso.夜景更加唔駛諗.而且咁變左張張相都係f2.8同17mm咪好悶.支鏡幾靚都好,開盡光圈點都差D,而且你係咪想張張都係f2.8的景深呢?
或者你可以用腳架,不過要問心個句你自己係咪呢D人?我真係見好多人鏡皇前,鏡皇後,買鏡就俺俺尖尖,但係影弱光就求求其其,成日都唔用腳架.好似鏡皇就手震都靚過人咁.