How does this lens compare with the similar one with an "APD" filter? Is it worth $500 more to wait for the one with this filter?
1794470
One thing that hasn't been addressed by others, is that the APD version won't work with phase detection autofocus, so not only its it "slower" with light gathering, but also slower with focusing. And it's $500 more. Unless you're shooting in a studio, I don't think most will be interested in this lens.
1794471
Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended! Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens... » Read More Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended! « Show Less
1794472
Certainly not for me, I could not justify the reduced light transmission of the APD filter. I use this often at f/1.2 and the APD version may be worse than f/1.4, some say 3/4 an f stop. Personally I thought about changing until I saw the impact on light and a rendering that i did not prefer.
1794473
Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended!
1818662
Or the 35mm F1.8 AF-S which is closer in price to this lens. (I have the 35mm and its fantastic for what that is worth).
1337730
Yes, don't listen to these yahoo's who tell you not too. You are protecting your investment. Better to crack a filter than the actual lens, especially a more expensive one. And to the person who said it affects lens flaring... that's what a lens hood is for.I slap a $10 Vivitar on every lens I get. From my nifty-fifty Minolta to my Zeiss and G lenses. There is practically no difference in image quality and if anything it might be better. I am a professional photographer who shoots weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc and never take my equipment without protection.
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
423083
I have the sel18105G. I didn't compare it with other lens and I am an amateur photographer. All I can say is that I think it is great withnice crisp photos.
1123379
No, save your money and get a better lens. The stock lens is better in my opinion
1023868
This is a fantastic lens, I love it and have it on one of my cameras all the time. But it is not the best for landscape photography, especially on an APS-C camera like the 60D. As Archman below said, I'd look for something with a wide angle in the 10-18mm range. Also concur--rent a couple of lenses if you can locally to see what you like best. Of course, you might pick something that was more than you planned to spend.... Good luck and have fun!
863040
I actually own both, and it's obvious that the lens is amazing. I shot a wedding with this combination and my other camera is a d7000 with a 17-55mm 2.8. My experience was hit and miss, just because the ISO is horrible on the D3100. In all honesty it all depends on what kind of shooting you are doing. If you will be shooting outside and in very low ISO - 400 or less - then you won't ever complain about too much noise on your images. The VRll is a monster of a lense, I would go for an used VRl. In my opinion this lens or the VRl are a great addition to any camera. Hope this helps
845608
I just saw that the new model (pzd) is just 20 dollars more and its lighter. The old version is a great all around lens. I highly recommend it. Recently i bought the 17-50 2.8 VC which way sharper and brighter, but the zoom range of this one is amazing. Good luck
1183536
I have not had a chance to compare both but this sigma is the first non canon lens I have put in my bag. Have 6 different ones and the sigma is a great value. I have not regretted it.
865043
Definitely worth it to me. This lens is faster and the stabilization is superb.
759242
If anyone is interested I have a 24-70L 2.8 Canon Lens. I only use it about 5 times total. 6 weeks after I bought it I purchase the 24-105 IS Canon Lens because I shoot mostly Wedding & Party's. The 24-105 IS works much better for the type of photography I do. I would sell it for $900.00 and include the B&W; UV Filter which is the top of the line brand filter which is made in Germany. Plus $25.00 for shipping. You can email me at rjgphoto@sbcglobal.net if anyone is interested.
1117321
I have one. For the price... it is a great lens. Make sure it is well mounted and set camera to high contrast and max sharp. Don't run it more than 12-1500mm. Hard to focus but does a great job "for the price." On a side note: the lens mount is high maintenance and will loosen after a few uses. Make sure your camera body is supported somehow. Take the lens off when not in use.
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
390228
If you are willing to fork out $500 - $550, I highly recommend the SAL 18250 (This is the best range I have found so far for the A350). This lens is SOLID, no drift, extremely quick focusing. If you don't want to schlep around those low quality "kit lens's", just buy the sony body and invest in this GREAT lens. Pic quality turns out great!! I have had this now for almost 4 months. Took it on a trip to Alaska and found it extremely versatile, going from wide to telephoto. The convenience factor alone (of not having to swap lens's) means a reduction in camera inside gunk that can spot up your pics, and easy shooting under any situation.
1746182
I don't have experience with those other lenses but I can tell you it is an amazing lens and worth every penny. I use it to shoot weddings and also do a lot of artistic shooting with it of flowers and stuff like that. The background blur is incredible.
435060
I've had both IS and non IS, I have found that for the price this is a very handy lens to have. It works great outside, and as long as you have a semblance of a half way steady hand then not having the IS won't be a problem. Some of the issues you might encounter with this lens is when it comes to shooting in lower light situations, for example trying to take pictures inside especially at night if the room is not heavily lit. In that case the IS would help but that would only take you so far. Part of that is due to the lens speed. I found that if you take more pictures and try to stay aware of light you should do just fine. I love that this lens has the wide angle and the ability to super zoom. This has become my main travel lens, because of its versatility. For the price you can't beat it, I think its like $199 and just starting off as a new photographer its a good start. Yes there are better lenses out there BUT you will pay a Lot more for them as well.