Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC Macro for Canon

[fritz1]

I am debating on the 17-70 DC Macro 2.8-4.5, verses the 18-50 2.8 DC EX

With the later one being an EX and 2.8 constant, my question is am I going to miss quality other than fit and finish of the EX and am I better off with the constant 2.8 I like the range of the 17-70 more but is it a compromise?

[condyk]

Personally, I would buy the 18-50mm if it is a straight choice between the two. Truth is you can't go far wrong with either. I prefer a constant aperture lens, a fast lens, and mainly use a range of around 18-50mm. So, if you know you want long then go for it. Most lenses are built fit for purpose and so unless you shoot in a war zone or are very careless then build will normally be fine.

[lakiluno]

From IQ comparisons they are pretty similar, apart from the obvious aperture difference.

Unless you need the constant 2.8, or your planning to take it somewhere really rough, then the Sigma should be fine. Perhaps, shoot with the kit lens for a day, and see if you find yourself wishing you had more reach. If you do, get the 17-70.

[steved110]

I don't have any f/2.8 zooms, but in your case would probably choose the 18-50 - it's a great price for a good enough focal length and I'd want to try the 2.8 and see what all the fuss is about.....

[EOS_JD]

The max apperture of 2.8 throughout the range is a big plus for the 18-50 and as it's an EX is's sigmas range of better lenses. Only if you must have the reach would I consider the 17-70.

[fritz1]

Great I am going to try both at the shop to see if IQ is different that's mostly what I look for I may as well lean towards the faster lens

[steved110]

It's always a good idea to try a lens out for size in-store if you can. It does make these choices a bit easier, sometimes you just have to handle a piece of gear to know.