postponed to 2pm already.
edited: referring to szetoo's talk

This post has been edited by tanjq87: Feb 23 2010, 01:23 AM

the konica minolta 17-35 f2.8-4 is very sharp wide open, light (not as heavy as the CZ2470, i think it's half the weight but of cos the build is normal plastic). Optical wise I think it's a very good ultra wide angle lens for its price.

I have one

The sigma 1224 is a different range. You will be amazed by it's 'wide-ness'. The only downside is the dark aperture, it starts from 4.5 to 5.6 if I am not mistaken. But again, many people will claim that if you shoot bright landscape, you don't need an f2.8 lens. So it's up to you. Sharpness wise I would say the KM1735 is slightly sharper than the sigma 1224. If you don't need that wide and need f2.8, I would say KM1735 is worth consideration. If your main aim is wide, nothing can beat the sigma 1224 in rectilinear form.

in msia, the sigma 1224 is about 3-3.2k new, used about 1.9-2.1k i think.
do u want me to return you the favour of cz2470 test with my km1735 test?


This post has been edited by tanjq87: Feb 24 2010, 03:21 PM

Wah, it's been so long since I last checked this thread, it's moving in lightning speed...

I used a tamron 200-400mm at 400mm with 2x telecoverter (effectively 800mm)on A850 at f13 and cropped approximately 100% with some minor sharpening and leveling.

No!f2.8 is still wont be enough for low light.
You need a f1.4 or use flash.