Bill Pryor |
March 30th, 2010 10:15 AM |
Corey, back to your original question, both of those lenses are pretty cheap but from what I've seen both can be sharp when used in their mid ranges. I know one person using the Sigma and it works fine for him. I had that cheap Canon lens that came with a 20D a long time ago, and it was sharp at the wide angles but a bit soft when zoomed in to 50mm and focused in close. Beyond about 10-15 feet zoomed in and stopped down it was reasonably acceptable. But it has a really crappy manual focus ring and the best way to use it is on auto focus, even though it'll be slow to focus.
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is probably the sharpest of the cheaper lenses in that category. For your 28-300, if you have an LCD viewer on the camera, which you have to have for outdoor video, with practice you can probably do decent hand held shots from around 28mm to about 35-40 mm. Anything zoomed beyond that is going to get shaky without a tripod. Even with IS, you're not going to be able to do good handheld video at very long focal lengths. That's why cameramen use tripods.
Generally, you can live with the cheaper lenses for some things if you work within their mid ranges. In other words, don't shoot at wide open apertures, don't shoot zoomed in or out all the way, don't shoot stopped down all the way, etc. They can get acceptable images in the middle but usually have a variety of problems at the extremes.
|