Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11th of January 2012 (Wed)   #1
babel_fish
Senior Member
 
babel_fish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 1,815
Default Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

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!
__________________
"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Bertrand Russell
Cheers,
Mike
babel_fish is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 11th of January 2012 (Wed)   #2
kin2son
User is banned from forums
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 4,546
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

On crop? 17-50 wins hands down.

24-70 is designed for ff, since you have no intention to upgrade...
kin2son is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of January 2012 (Wed)   #3
babel_fish
Senior Member
 
babel_fish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 1,815
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kin2son View Post
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...
__________________
"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Bertrand Russell
Cheers,
Mike
babel_fish is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 11th of January 2012 (Wed)   #4
calvinjhfeng
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 865
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

Quote:
Originally Posted by babel_fish View Post
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.
__________________
flickr
5∞ portfolio
calvinjhfeng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of January 2012 (Wed)   #5
babel_fish
Senior Member
 
babel_fish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 1,815
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

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.
__________________
"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Bertrand Russell
Cheers,
Mike
babel_fish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of January 2012 (Wed)   #6
calvinjhfeng
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 865
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

Quote:
Originally Posted by babel_fish View Post
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.
__________________
flickr
5∞ portfolio
calvinjhfeng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of January 2012 (Wed)   #7
FEChariot
Goldmember
 
FEChariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,894
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

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.
__________________
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, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.
FEChariot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of January 2012 (Wed)   #8
babel_fish
Senior Member
 
babel_fish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 1,815
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

Quote:
Originally Posted by calvinjhfeng View Post
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...
__________________
"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Bertrand Russell
Cheers,
Mike
babel_fish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of January 2012 (Wed)   #9
calvinjhfeng
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 865
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

Quote:
Originally Posted by babel_fish View Post
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)
__________________
flickr
5∞ portfolio

Last edited by calvinjhfeng : 11th of January 2012 (Wed) at 23:25.
calvinjhfeng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of January 2012 (Thu)   #10
wayne.robbins
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,062
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

Quote:
Originally Posted by babel_fish View Post
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.
__________________
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)...
wayne.robbins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of January 2012 (Thu)   #11
Unregistered.Coward
Member
 
Unregistered.Coward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Looking thru the viewfinder
Posts: 884
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

Quote:
Originally Posted by calvinjhfeng View Post
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.
__________________
....the best camera is the one you have on you at the time.
Unregistered.Coward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of January 2012 (Thu)   #12
Nick3434
Senior Member
 
Nick3434's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
Posts: 1,322
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

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.
__________________
Everything is relative.
Gear: Unholy Trinity

FlikR
Nick3434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of January 2012 (Thu)   #13
DDL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 406
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

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.
__________________
DDL

GearList
DDL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of January 2012 (Thu)   #14
Amamba
Goldmember
 
Amamba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SE MI
Posts: 3,459
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

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 ?
__________________
Ex-Canon shooter. Now Sony Nex.
Life Lessons: KISS. RTFM. Don't sweat the small stuff.
My Gear List
Amamba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of January 2012 (Thu)   #15
calvinjhfeng
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 865
Default Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 (quality of overlap)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wayne.robbins View Post
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.
__________________
flickr
5∞ portfolio
calvinjhfeng is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's up w/ Sigma quality? fstopped Lens Sample Photo Archive 2 29th of September 2010 (Wed) 20:10
Sigma Quality Control? theague Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 10 29th of July 2008 (Tue) 02:57
Sigma 17-70 optical quality vs EFS 17-85 / EF 28-135 dash_x Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 4 21st of September 2007 (Fri) 14:15
quality of sigma 17-70 Littleben Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 90 28th of December 2006 (Thu) 15:02
Sigma 1.4x TC Quality Zamora3 Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 9 28th of July 2005 (Thu) 09:30


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.