Sigma 17-50 vs Canon 24-70L : Completing my zoom lens.

Hi everyone!

I finally have enough money to complete my zoom lens lineup.

I planned to buy a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and EF 70-200 f/4L IS, the question is, what should I put in the middle?

I've already chose the Sigma over Canon 17-55. Would the overlap between 10-20 and 17-50 be too much. I mean, I think the 24-70 will fit in the gap better.
I will definitely go FF in 4-5 years, would that be too long if I get 24-70 now?
I know there is a significant price gap, but that's not a problem, I just want a lens that works.

Thank you for your inputs.

Focal length overlap can be a good thing. If you shoot more towards the wide end of the range, you will end up swapping between the 10-20mm and 24-70mm a lot. Having a 17-50mm instead would avoid this.

Before adding a full frame, I had both the Canon EFS 10-22mm and 17-55mm zooms, and preferred having the overlap. Generally, if I needed something longer than 55mm, I needed a lot longer, so the difference between 55mm and 70mm on the long end of the lens was not an issue.

If you are 4-5 years away from going full frame, then buy your lenses for now, not that far into the future. You can always sell them later. I owned the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 for over 5 years, and lost very little money when I sold it.

Scott M wrote in post #14439825
Focal length overlap can be a good thing. If you shoot more towards the wide end of the range, you will end up swapping between the 10-20mm and 24-70mm a lot. Having a 17-50mm instead would avoid this.

Before adding a full frame, I had both the Canon EFS 10-22mm and 17-55mm zooms, and preferred having the overlap. Generally, if I needed something longer than 55mm, I needed a lot longer, so the difference between 55mm and 70mm on the long end of the lens was not an issue.

If you are 4-5 years away from going full frame, then buy your lenses for now, not that far into the future. You can always sell them later. I owned the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 for over 5 years, and lost very little money when I sold it.

Thank you, I didn't think about that, it makes a lot of sense as sometimes I'd like to take only 1 lens and go out.
How did you like the 17-55? I'm 90% towards Sigma but if I can get one with good price, my options are always open.

I chose the 24-70mm over the 17-55mm. Similarly to what Scott M said, most of my shots are between 28mm to 50mm (I grew and adapted to a 28-135mm and 50mm f/1.4). If I ever needed wider, it would be my 10-22mm.

saranw71 wrote in post #14439863
Thank you, I didn't think about that, it makes a lot of sense as sometimes I'd like to take only 1 lens and go out.
How did you like the 17-55? I'm 90% towards Sigma but if I can get one with good price, my options are always open.

I loved the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. It was very sharp, and its auto focus performance was stellar. I purchased it long before Sigma or Tamron had competing lenses, so I cannot offer a comparison there. The only reason I sold the 17-55 is because I added a full frame body to my kit and would no longer be using the lens.

If you shoot wide, then having 24mm as the widest focal distance for your walkaround lens means you will not be taking a single lens very often. It all depends on your shooting style.

Take a look at your existing photos with your 18-55mm kit lens and see which end of the range they mostly fall. It will give you an idea if you need 17mm at the wide end or 70mm at the long end more.

Thanks for all the replies.

Scott M wrote in post #14440140
I loved the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. It was very sharp, and its auto focus performance was stellar. I purchased it long before Sigma or Tamron had competing lenses, so I cannot offer a comparison there. The only reason I sold the 17-55 is because I added a full frame body to my kit and would no longer be using the lens.

If you shoot wide, then having 24mm as the widest focal distance for your walkaround lens means you will not be taking a single lens very often. It all depends on your shooting style.

Take a look at your existing photos with your 18-55mm kit lens and see which end of the range they mostly fall. It will give you an idea if you need 17mm at the wide end or 70mm at the long end more.

A lot of my shots are at 18mm, but then it skip to 30-55mm maybe I should walk around with a UWA?

Here's an exposure plot for all of my photos.

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

You do have a lot at 18. Guessing that's the widest you've had at that point maybe? But the jump to the longer end is more telling.

For your shooting it looks like the 24-70 may actually be a better choice (and rarely do I think 24-70 is a better choice then a 17-50 on a crop).

If you think you'd be happy switching to the 10-20 when you need wider then go with a 24-70 (tamrons new 24-70 VC looks nice as well so don't rule that out either)

It does look like you are shooting a lot at both extremes of your current focal range. If you do not need the constant f/2.8 maximum aperture, you may want to consider the Canon EFS 15-85mm instead. You may even find that 15mm is wide enough and you do not need the 10-20mm ultra-wide.

Thanks for the input! Great forum!!
Scott M, yes, I do need constant 2.8. (Dim auditorium at my college - not so dim that I need fast primes)
Gremlin75, 18 is the widest I have.
I don't mind changing lens, though there are moments when I want to just grab one lens and go.
I also use a 550D, would the balance be very bad with 24-70L?

I'd recommend the Sigma 17-50 OS. Compares very favorably against the 24-70. Since a lot of your shots are at 18mm, you'll want the 17-50 for close in shots. (You generally can move forward, but not backward since your back may be against a wall. The overlap is a good thing since you could possible use the 10-20 for group shots at the longer end of the zoom, and not have to switch lenses. The gap of 50 to 70mm is not that much. Just take a few steps forward and you there. If you shoot in RAW, white balancing should be the same for all the lens when tune the WB in post.

saranw71 wrote in post #14441003
I don't mind changing lens, though there are moments when I want to just grab one lens and go.

If you want the ability to take just one lens, then a 17-50mm would be the better option, IMO. As mentioned a few times, the difference between 50-70mm is not that great compared to the difference between 17-24mm on the wide end.

saranw71 wrote in post #14439754
Hi everyone!

I finally have enough money to complete my zoom lens lineup.

I planned to buy a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and EF 70-200 f/4L IS, the question is, what should I put in the middle?

I've already chose the Sigma over Canon 17-55. Would the overlap between 10-20 and 17-50 be too much. I mean, I think the 24-70 will fit in the gap better.
I will definitely go FF in 4-5 years, would that be too long if I get 24-70 now?
I know there is a significant price gap, but that's not a problem, I just want a lens that works.

Thank you for your inputs.

FYI: The Sigma 17-50 will not fit a full frame body...APS-C sensor only.

24-70L isn't wide enough on crop. And it's a great lens for full frame but I sold it since I use 16-35L + 70-200 II combo these days. 24-70L just sat in my bag...

Tim S wrote in post #14442080
FYI: The Sigma 17-50 will not fit a full frame body...APS-C sensor only.

But why compromise and get the wrong lens to use for the next 4-5 years? Better to get the appropriate tool to use now and sell the lens many years down the road if she does in fact move to full frame. Lenses hold their value quite well.

I agree with those who say buying a lens thinking you will go FF isn't the best way to go.

Some people never go FF for lots of reasons.

A 17-50 range cover for most people almost their entire range of focal length needs. It's wide enough for wideish shots and long enough for good people distance shots if you need to zoom in.

There's always a good market for quality crop standard zooms so buy what you need now and upgrade later. Just look at the 24-70 if someone had bought it last year thinking maybe they would upgrade to full frame. Now they would be with a lens that's one generation older. And there's a change they would now go and buy the mk2 or the Tamron version with VC.

It's a myth that lens are for a life time. It's only true if you never aspire to get a new body or can live with decades old technology and image quality.