Sigma 17-50 đi bạn. Con 17-40L méo nhiều tại 17mm, khẩu cũng nhỏ. Nếu bạn dùng FF thì khỏi phải lăn tăn vì chỉ xài đc 17-40 thôi nhưng nếu xài 60D thì mua ngay 17-50. @ViTieuBao86cảm ơn ViTieuBao86, e cũng nghiên về sigma hơn nhưng thấy L nghĩ là chất lượng nó cao hơn sigma nhiều nên hơi lăn tăn @Duy Khoa Phạmkhông hẳn thế đâu thời đại nào rồi mà còn chính hãng tốt hơn for? Yên tâm đi bạn, mình xài sig 17-50 rồi và thấy nếu dùng máy crop thì em này là best price/performance @ViTieuBao86con Tamron nonVC trc bác bán cho ông anh cũng ngon quá bác a, chụp rất nét nhé, cầm bộ 600D + Tamron đó chụp cảnh mà em cầm 6D còn phải nuối tiếc, hic, chả nhẽ bán đi quay về crop 😆 @hx100Chuẩn nét mà bác, con đấy em cũng test kỹ rồi. Bán đi cũng tiếc nhưng đợt đấy cần flash để chụp Đại hội cho cơ quan. Nói chung trên crop này mà tầm tiền ấy thì cứ xài tam hoặc sig 17-50 là khỏi phải xoắn, từ nhà tới trường chơi tuốt. L là dòng đắt tiền vì có nhiều công nghệ đc tích hợp nhưng nếu ko chuyên sâu thì ko cần còn sigma nhiều ống giá =2/3 nhưng chất lượng ngang ngửa và nhỉnh hơn L kha khá, nhất ở khoản nét và màu The type of photography that you are planning to use is an important decision factor. Here we have evaluated the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC OS HSM and the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM for their suitability to various photography scenarios: Size and Weight ComparisonThe size of a lens is an important deciding factor when comparing two lenses. Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM is the longer of the two lenses at 92mm. The Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC OS HSM with a length of 89mm, is 3mm shorter. Besides being longer, the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM also has a larger diameter of 84mm compared to the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC OS HSM's 79mm diameter. The weight of a lens is as important as its external dimensions, especially if you are planning to hand hold your camera and lens combination for longer periods. Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC OS HSM weighs 520g, which means it is 45g (7%) lighter than the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM which has a weight of 565g. Below you can find the dimension and weight table of the Standard Zoom Lenses in Sigma SA Mount for size comparison purposes. Standard Zoom Lenses in Sigma SA Mount for Size Comparison Lens MountsBoth the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC OS HSM and the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM has the same Sigma SA lens mount. Some of the latest released cameras that are compatible with the Sigma SA lenses are Sigma SD1 Merrill, Sigma SD1 and . Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC OS HSM is also available in Canon EF , Pentax KAF3, Sony Alpha and Nikon F (DX) mounts. Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM is also available in Canon EF , Pentax KAF3, Sony Alpha and Nikon F (DX) mounts. Focal RangeSigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC OS HSM has a focal range of 17-70mm and 4.1X zoom ratio which has an effective (full-frame 35mm equivalent) focal range of 25.5-105mm when used on a APS-C / DX format camera. Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM has a focal range of 17-50mm and 2.9X zoom ratio which has an effective (full-frame 35mm equivalent) focal range of 25.5-75mm when used on a APS-C / DX format camera. I take the reviews with some grain of salt, though they are helpful. Things can change when focused at various distances, which most tests do not do. I have a number of lenses in the focal lengths of these two. The Pentax mount of the 17-50mm f/2.8 omits the shake reduction incorporated for the Canikon mounts. Maybe this allows more concentration and time on QC for optical purposes in the Pentax copies? I recently acquired one and I am delighted with its performance, its build quality, and its quiet AF. I wanted the f/2.8 aperture for times when I need that, and the price was right. I've been surprised by how good it is. I believe in looking at real image tests most of all, although DXO, lines of res, etc. can be helpful for evaluation. I looked at these tests before my purchase. I find very little difference in the better, older version 17-70mm compared with the 17-50mm at 17mm and f/2.8 wide open when pixel-peeping in these tests. I pay less attention to corners than I do edges and centers. In the still life, I look at the brush area at the right side and numerical wheel, the printing on the lower label on the Samuel Smith bottle towards the image bottom, the figure on the Hellas label, the edge of the basket on the left and the center. The 17-50mm seems to lose just a little at mid FL (28mm) wide open, but too bad both were not tested at the same mid FL- the 17-70mm was at 35mm. However, the 17-50mm lost a little more wide open (f/2.8) at its extreme long end of 50mm (no surprise at its longest FL), while the 17-70mm held up well wide open at its long end of 70mm. BUT then it has lost the f/2.8 advantage over most of its range. With my copy of the 17-50mm in shooting at various distances and FLs, I have found good to very good and even excellent results even wide open depending on center to edge and FL, but stopping down very little even to f/3.2 improves sharpness noticeably when f/2.8 is coming in just at the "good" level, even at edges! Mine is doing better than the tests have indicated! It is not of internal-focusing design, so it should not have "focus breathing". The focus collar does rotate during AF, so keep your fingers back! The front element does not, so it is fine with rotational filters. |
