LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 11 Jan 2012 (Wednesday) 13:53   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
babel_fish
Goldmember
babel_fish's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
1,819 posts
Seattle
[MORE/SHARE]

So, I have these two lenses in my sights and for the most part I am not too concerned with being able to transfer my choice to a full frame body (I shoot crop). So with that said I'd like to get opinions from people who might have experience with these two lenses.

Comparisons I am not interested in:

IS/OS
HSM
FF compatible

I'm looking at specifically how they stack up to each other IQ wise in their overlap range which is 24mm-50mm. And to be honest with myself that is the sweet spot I work in most often anyway as I have primes on that longer end and an WA/UWA zoom covering the shorter end. The additional range on either side of 24-50 would just be gravy.

Thanks!

Post #1, Jan 11, 2012 13:53:22


"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Bertrand Russell
Cheers,
Mike

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
kin2son
Goldmember
Joined May 2011
4,546 posts
Sydney, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

On crop? 17-50 wins hands down.

24-70 is designed for ff, since you have no intention to upgrade...

Post #2, Jan 11, 2012 15:33:14


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickrexternal link | My Images on Getty®‎external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
babel_fish
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
babel_fish's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
1,819 posts
Seattle
[MORE/SHARE]

kin2son wrote in post #13687308external link
On crop? 17-50 wins hands down.

24-70 is designed for ff, since you have no intention to upgrade...

So, ANY lens "designed for crop" will beat out any lens that is "designed for full frame" in the same focal lengths they share?

I don't follow...

Post #3, Jan 11, 2012 20:01:51


"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Bertrand Russell
Cheers,
Mike

LOG IN TO REPLY
cfvisuals
Senior Member
Joined Mar 2011
866 posts
San Diego
[MORE/SHARE]

babel_fish wrote in post #13688778external link
So, ANY lens "designed for crop" will beat out any lens that is "designed for full frame" in the same focal lengths they share?

I don't follow...

Crop lens beat FF lens by price level.
Same quality(on crop), different price.

Post #4, Jan 11, 2012 20:07:18


flickrexternal link
5∞ portfolioexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
babel_fish
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
babel_fish's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
1,819 posts
Seattle
[MORE/SHARE]

the two lenses im looking at have similar prices. Im concerned with the quality of the two in the 24mm-50mm range, and which will have higher IQ in that range.


The only thing I can think of is that the 24-70 overlaps at the bottom of its range, and the 17-50 overlaps at the end of its range.

Post #5, Jan 11, 2012 20:10:25


"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Bertrand Russell
Cheers,
Mike

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
cfvisuals
Senior Member
Joined Mar 2011
866 posts
San Diego
[MORE/SHARE]

babel_fish wrote in post #13688816external link
the two lenses im looking at have similar prices. Im concerned with the quality of the two in the 24mm-50mm range, and which will have higher IQ in that range.


The only thing I can think of is that the 24-70 overlaps at the bottom of its range, and the 17-50 overlaps at the end of its range.

Well for your example, there is virtually no difference in image quality if you put both lens on crop. However there is a difference in image quality if you put the crop lens on crop vs the ff lens on full frame.

For crop sensor users, it's the focal length that affects buyers' choice.
17-50 on crop has the FoV of standard zoom-range on full frame, it is designed specifically for crop that way. And some may favor 24-70 for its reach.

Post #6, Jan 11, 2012 20:27:41


flickrexternal link
5∞ portfolioexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
FEChariot's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
3,118 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

I hear people raving about the 17-50 all the time but the 24-70 HSM- not so much. I would be interested in hearing users opinions of the 24-70 but it seems not so many people choose it.

I do have a coworker that just ordered the 24-70 from Adorama but hasn't recieved it yet, but he shoots Pentax. He has a K7 and a K5 and has been using a Pentax 16-50/2.8 and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM II for basketball but the 16-50 is slow focusing and he wanted to bridge the gap between 50-70 on his second body for the close up shots under the hoop. He is a semi pro photog that makes just enough to pay for his gear which is much more than me. Anyhow I am looking forward to his review.

Post #7, Jan 11, 2012 20:40:27 as a reply to babel_fish's post 38 minutes earlier.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

LOG IN TO REPLY
babel_fish
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
babel_fish's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
1,819 posts
Seattle
[MORE/SHARE]

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #13688929external link
Well for your example, there is virtually no difference in image quality if you put both lens on crop. However there is a difference in image quality if you put the crop lens on crop vs the ff lens on full frame.

For crop sensor users, it's the focal length that affects buyers' choice.
17-50 on crop has the FoV of standard zoom-range on full frame, it is designed specifically for crop that way. And some may favor 24-70 for its reach.

Do you have trouble with english or are you just getting FOV and IQ mixed up? I hope it's the latter. We are all perfectly clear on the fact that both lenses will produce identical field of views at the focal lengths described but assuming image quality is... Nevermind...

Post #8, Jan 11, 2012 22:42:04


"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Bertrand Russell
Cheers,
Mike

LOG IN TO REPLY
cfvisuals
Senior Member
Joined Mar 2011
866 posts
San Diego
[MORE/SHARE]

babel_fish wrote in post #13689613external link
Do you have trouble with english or are you just getting FOV and IQ mixed up? I hope it's the latter. We are all perfectly clear on the fact that both lenses will produce identical field of views at the focal lengths described but assuming image quality is... Nevermind...

I think you are the one having trouble with english.

Didn't I just say they are identical in image quality?

I wasn't talking about Field of View, I was strictly talking about image quality of the two lenses on crop camera.

However, if it's one lens on crop vs another lens on full frame, it's a different story. You probably weren't paying attention. I said FF lens on full frame provides better image quality (sharpness, bokeh, DoF, everything.) That's probably sensor's contribution instead of the lens, but in other words crop sensor is limiting the potential of a lens. So Sigma 24-70 and 17-50 on crop sensor won't have a difference in image quality (in the overlap part), if you do see a minor difference, that would be due to quality control.

With that being said, ONLY FACTOR that affects buyer's choice is focal length, not image quality. (For these two lenses)

Post #9, Jan 11, 2012 23:18:25


flickrexternal link
5∞ portfolioexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
wayne.robbins
Goldmember
Joined Nov 2010
2,062 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

babel_fish wrote in post #13688778external link
So, ANY lens "designed for crop" will beat out any lens that is "designed for full frame" in the same focal lengths they share?

I don't follow...

You aren't the only one. Designed for Crop vs Designed for Full Frame- makes no sense... There can be EF lens that outperform an EF-S lens and vice versa.. So, I gotta agree with you on this one. It'd be like saying that the Canon EF-S 55-250 is better than the Canon 70-200 IS USM II- because it was designed for crop.

Post #10, Jan 12, 2012 05:21:24


EOS 5D III, EOS 7D,EOS Rebel T4i, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, Canon 24-105L, Canon 18-135 IS STM, 1.4x TC III, 2.0x TC III, Σ 50mm f/1.4, Σ 17-50 OS, Σ 70-200 OS, Σ 50-500 OS, Σ 1.4x TC, Σ 2.0x TC, 580EXII(3), Canon SX-40, Canon S100
Fond memories: Rebel T1i, Canon 18-55 IS, Canon 55-250 IS, 18-135 IS (Given to a good home)...

LOG IN TO REPLY
Unregistered.Coward
Senior Member
Unregistered.Coward's Avatar
Joined Oct 2010
884 posts
Looking thru the viewfinder
[MORE/SHARE]

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #13689770external link
I think you are the one having trouble with english.

I think it's more an issue with you not really making any sense. Try constructing a rationality for your statements.

Post #11, Jan 12, 2012 05:53:24


....the best camera is the one you have on you at the time.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Nick3434
Goldmember
Nick3434's Avatar
Joined Dec 2010
1,322 posts
Trespassing in South Florida
[MORE/SHARE]

I think he is getting iq being the same across overlapping focal lengths. I would forget the crop vs. ff bs and really buy based on needing more,at the long end, or more at the short end. 24-17 is a big difference on the short as obviously 50-70 is on the long. I have the 17-50 and am one of the many that is super impressed, but I need to shoot inside a lot, if I shot outside a lot I think the 24-70 would be a better range.

Post #12, Jan 12, 2012 06:12:36


Everything is relative.
Gear: Unholy Trinity:twisted:
FlikRexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
DDL
Senior Member
Joined Jan 2009
406 posts
Alberta, Canada
[MORE/SHARE]

There have been situations where my Canon 17-55f/2.8 EFS has been slightly too short indoors (my daughter's studio dance events) so I've been thinking 24-70 might be of more use there than 17-55. I'm shooting at a shutter speed fast enough not to need IS but would prefer it if available on a 24-70 (it isn't!).

The EF-S/DC lens design can be made cheaper because they only have to focus on a smaller sensor versus a FF lens.

Most FF lens usually produce very good results including corners on APS-c even if they have corner issues on FF because only the "center" portion of the FF lens is used on an APS-c camera.

Post #13, Jan 12, 2012 07:39:50 as a reply to Nick3434's post 1 hour earlier.


DDL

GearList

LOG IN TO REPLY
Amamba
Goldmember
Amamba's Avatar
Joined Nov 2007
3,516 posts
SE MI
[MORE/SHARE]

Wow, talk about going off on a tangent here ! I think OP's question was pretty simple. How similar or different are these two lenses in terms on performance on same crop body. IQ wise, AF wise etc. Two seemingly similar lenses from same manufacturer can be very different - e.g. Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC and Tamron 28-75/2.8 are identical in all but FL, however early 17-50/2.8 VC was somewhat inferior optically (they may have fixed it in later batches from what I read). Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS is great optically and has fast and accurate AF. Is 24-70 same optically ? How does it perform AF wise ? Not on FF but on the same crop body ? I.e. if the OP or I decide to change from one lens to another would we see any difference other than FL ?

Post #14, Jan 12, 2012 08:30:55


Ex-Canon shooter. Now Sony Nex.
Life Lessons: KISS. RTFM. Don't sweat the small stuff.
My Gear Listexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
cfvisuals
Senior Member
Joined Mar 2011
866 posts
San Diego
[MORE/SHARE]

wayne.robbins wrote in post #13690574external link
You aren't the only one. Designed for Crop vs Designed for Full Frame- makes no sense... There can be EF lens that outperform an EF-S lens and vice versa.. So, I gotta agree with you on this one. It'd be like saying that the Canon EF-S 55-250 is better than the Canon 70-200 IS USM II- because it was designed for crop.

Designed for crop vs design...whatever, the statement isn't always true however it does make sense if we think of it as a comparison of value instead of strict comparison of performance.

We must recall what was the purpose of introducing crop sensor to the market, it was to cut down cost. The priority of crop users is probably price level. The best DSLR for general consumers would be the one that is as affordable as a point shooter. Hence EF-S > EF for crop users in most cases, in terms of utility per dollar.
However, like you have pointed out EF-S 55-250 can not beat 70-200 IS USM II in terms of quality. But for value, 55-250 beats 70-200.

For those who value 70-200 IS USM II more, they are probably professionals and they probably wouldn't walk around with only a rebel or crop camera. They are likely to have 1D series or at least 5D.

EF-S lens are better lenses for crop cameras mainly because price and focal length. 17-55 on crop has the equivalent FoV to the true standard zoom range on full frame.

Well it is obvious that more expensive a lens is, the better it is, but not its value and utility/dollar to specific users.

Post #15, Jan 12, 2012 13:39:35


flickrexternal link
5∞ portfolioexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
7,946 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00087 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
975 guests, 628 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Varneeezy

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.