On 13/2/05, Amita Guha, discombobulated, unleashed: >Today is Nate's birthday, and I got him the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 because I >thought he wanted it based on samples he'd seen. Turns out he likes it, but >he has that range covered by his Canon 17-40mm, so he can't decide if he >should keep it. The Sigma is faster than the Canon, but that's the only >advantage as far as he can see. Does anyone have the Sigma 20mm or can >anyone think of a reason for him to keep it? I don't mind if he returns it, >but he is really on the fence about this one. > >Meanwhile, I'm eyeing this lens for myself...it's one of those times when I >really wish we were on the same system...
I had the Sigma 24 1.8 in EOS and it was a macro as well - I sold it a while back. I recently picked up an EF 20mm 2.8 and I love it. Prime lenses give a refreshing discipline that zooms cannot emulate. However, I suspect his 17-40 (even as a zoom) is no slouch compared to the Sigma. I am not Sigma's biggest fan. F/1.8 is fast, but if you're on Pentax, surely the Pentax 20mm would be the one to shoot for? It boils down to the maximum aperture - do you really need it / will you use it? If yes, then you have no choice - go for the Sigma. If you can do with 2.8 (IIRC) then the Pentax would be the one to have. If Nate likes wide angles, he would enjoy the Sigma 14mm 2.8 on his Canon - used examples eBay for about 650 bucks which I appreciate is a bit more than a Stigma 20. Thood for fought :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
