Which Sigma lens is best for me?

[brian_lewis67]

I currently own a Canon 350D and am ready to upgrade my Sigma 18-50 standard lens.

I'm torn between two Sigma lenses as I'm not sure which one would suit me best.

I already own a Sigma 70-300 APO Macro lens.
I take photo's of anything and everything- Landscape, portraits, macro, etc.

The two lenses are

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro
and
18-50mm F2.8 EX DC

They are roughly the same price so money isn't the issue.

Will the constant aperture on the 18-50mm benefit me enough or am I better off going with the extra range on the 17-70.

They both appear to fair well in tests but is one known to be sharper than the other.

Any advice would be appreciated.

[Olegis]

I would go with the 17-70 lens - it's newer and has more reach, which is very nice feature to have in everyday walkaround lens.

[vjack]

It depends on whether you need constant f/2.8. I'm not sure anyone can answer that for you. Personally, I'd probably go with the 17-70 because I'd use it mostly outdoors in decent light. If I was planning to do more indoor shooting, the constant f/2.8 would become more desirable.

[Digitalwave]

It's really up to which range would you prefer. Do you find your current 18-50 to be plenty (I did) or do you find yourself wanting more in your walk around lens?

I bought the 18-50 EX because of the build, the sharpness, and the constant f/2.8 aperture. After the 18-50 f/3.5-5.6, I didn't want a shifting aperture lens anymore.

[theJingster]

those two lenses are very similar so it's mainly up to you to decide whether you prefer the range or the constant aperture.

if you don't use the wide end much, you might think about the 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG macro.

[Tee Why]

If you want more speed and don't mind the 50-70mm gap, then the 18-50.

If you don't mind the slower speed and don't want a gap from 50-70mm, then 17-70.

[PostShawn]

The others pretty much covered the differences so I won't go into that. But I have the 17-70 and it is my walk around lens. I am very happy with it. I've shot mostly out doors, both day and night and it performs well. I have done only a little indoors but it's not bad there too.

[scotttnz]

The "Macro" capabilities of the 17-70 are another thing in it's favour. Not true macro, but by all accounts very good for closeups. I really want the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS, but will probably end up with the Sigma 17-70 and a fast prime instead.

[basroil]

if you have a fast fifty (50 2.5 compact macro, 50 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.2, 50 1.0, or the ancient 50 .95), get the 17-70 for walkaround and let the 50 do portraits. if you don't have one, either get one, or get the 18-50 2.8.

[Tee Why]

The 50mm f1.8 for a cheap low light/portrait lens is a decent idea, as I have one as well. But remember, the f1.8 version makes ugly pentagon shaped bokeh of lights, which in my view is pretty ugly.

[brian_lewis67]

Thanks to everyone for their suggestions/advice.

Is the IQ comparable with both lenses or is the EX 18-50 better because it's part of the EX range?

[Mr. Clean]

As I've read, the IQ is comparable. The 17-70 that I had owned was comparable to the 24-70EX I currently own, with the 24-70 being only slightly better at a pixel peeping level. You will not be disappointed by getting the 17-70. Heck a lot of times I still wish I had one!

[evandavies]

I have the 17-70 and I'm very happy with it:

http://www.pbase.com/evandavies/sigma_17_70

Mainly closeups

[Steve Parr]

I bought the 17-70mm two weeks ago, and I couldn't be happier. It's a great lens, and a great value...

[liza]

You might also check out the Tamron 17-50. From what I understand, it's a keeper.

[mrfourcows]

if you have a fast fifty (50 2.5 compact macro, 50 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.2, 50 1.0, or the ancient 50 .95), get the 17-70 for walkaround and let the 50 do portraits. if you don't have one, either get one, or get the 18-50 2.8.

you sure about the 50mm f/1.2? or the 50mm f/0.95? you sure they've got them in the ef mounts? or are you suggesting fd-ef adaptors?

[MillCreek]

I was recently pondering this very issue: the Sigma 17-70 vs. 24-60 EX vs. 24-70 EX on a 20D body. I was 'filling in the blanks' between my 10-20 and 70-200. After reading all the reviews and thinking about what I wanted to use it for, I went with the 17-70 which in fact was delivered just yesterday. For my needs, having the 17 on the wide end and the quasi-macro capabilities were the deciding factors.

[form]

My opinion is that the best Sigma lens is a Tamron equivalent. I don't care a lot for Sigma, for three reasons: Quality control, customer support, and the way their CA/Corner softness appears (my subjective opinion). The only reason I keep my Sigma ultra-wide is because I think it's a little better than Canon's equivalent. Well..that, and because it was a gift.

[brian_lewis67]

Thanks again for all your advice.

One last question which I can't seem to find anywhere...On the 17-70mm I'm assuming it would be f2.7 at the widest end and 4.5 at the long end but roughly where inbetween does it lose the f2.8?

Cheers.

[Petelebon]

these are approximate, on my Drebel 350D + Sig 17-70:
17-19: f2.8
20-25: f3.2
26-34: f3.5
35-55: f4.0
55-70: f4.5

[brian_lewis67]

Cheers Petelebon.

[Diminished29]

Might I add, that remember even if you are indoors I'd be a betting man that rarely will you find yourself wanting to go above 30mm (which would bring you to about f/3.5 on the 17-70mm, which is not that high) do to space limitations.

That being said its nothing that upping the ISO a little bit couldn't cure. Besides, with the low noise produced on the 20D anyways NeatImage works wonders.

[brian_lewis67]

Thanks diminished...That's what I've been thinking that due to the 1.6 multiplyer on my 350D It would be unlikely to go above 30mm as this would equate to 48mm.

It look slike I'm going for the 17-70 and then the 50mm 1.8 in a couple of months time for the indoor portrait shots anyway!

Finally decided.....Hooray! :D

[brian_lewis67]

Well I want to say thanks to everyone for their advice. I now have a Sigma 17-70mm, a Canon 50mm 1.8 II and a Lowepro slingshot AW200 in the post.

Just in time for my holiday to West Wales.

[Petelebon]

good choice! Your next moves would probably be a telephoto zoom (such as Canon 70-300IS or 70-200L f4 or Sigma 70-300APO) and then after an ultra wide zoom (Canon EFS 10-22 or sigma 10-20)...
Take your time and go for more-than-average quality lenses that you can keep for a long time. Your 17-70 and Ef50 f1.8 are good examples of good quality and good value lenses, while not priced in stratosphere...

[brian_lewis67]

Cheers, I've already got the Sigma 70-300APO so now need to save up for a an ultra wide....Once my girlfriend is talking to me again.

[vjack]

Well I want to say thanks to everyone for their advice. I now have a Sigma 17-70mm, a Canon 50mm 1.8 II and a Lowepro slingshot AW200 in the post.

Just in time for my holiday to West Wales.

Nice. I hope you will post photos from that new 17-70 and let us know how you like it.

[brian_lewis67]

Will do....Should arrive tomorrow so hopefully I'll be able to use it next weekend.

[brian_lewis67]

Well here are the first few pics using my new 17-70 and I must admit I'm impressed.

Comments welcome. :D

[gef]

I just ordered this lens myself and by the looks for those two pictures I think I made a good choice... That first one really grabs me.. Very nice!