Sigma suggestion

I'm thinking about expanding my lens collection again. I mainly shoot at car shows and cars solo and even a little bit of portrait work. i already have some telephotos but not much in the shorter range other than the 50mm 1.8 and kit 18-55. I shoot both off a 1000d for running around and a 60d on occassion. i was looking at both the sigma 17-50 2.8 or the 24-70mm 2.8. was just wanting feedback if one of these lenses produced better images than the other or which might be better suited to me.

so you are looking to upgrade the kit? or wil you keep it?

i wouldn't get a 24-70 unless you were still had access to a wider lens. i love my tammy 28-75 on a crop, but i also have an UWA when i need to go wider.

i'm keeping the 18-55, I'm one of those people that won't get rid of a lens unless i'm replacing with exact same focal range

if you get a 17-50/2.8 you wont use it any more.

if you didn't already know 24-70 is made for FF bodies, since it gives the same effective FOV a 17-50 gives on a crop.

in addition to the FOV you need to be aware that some lenses made for FFs, even some L's dont have the resolving power for the high pixel density on a crop sensor and can be outperformed by a lens made exclusively a crop body..

Sigma 24-70 is not particularly sharp and it's made for ff. Go with the 17-50 OS.

You guys are refering to the latest Sigma 24-70 HSM right? This lens is only for FF..? I'm pretty sure it fits crop as well..Haven't encountered Sigma lens that only fits one kind.

lenses made for FF fit crops, the converse isnt always true. Hence Canons EF and EF-S lines every EF lens will mount a crop body, but the EF-S lenses wont mount a FF. Sigma and Tamron have there own designations as well but im not up on them.

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS is the lens I use for cars and bikes, except for when I use the 70-200mm f/2.8 alongside it. Excellent lens. Most if not all of these were shot with the 17-50mm. I was originally using a Sig 18-200mm and Canon 100mm L macro, but I sold the macro and wanted to find a suitable "replacement" for it for cars and bikes that I could shoot f/2.8-f/4 for detail shots, but shoot full-body shots as well. Looked around and figured the 17-50mm was worth a try, bought it and love it. I think it's a great lens for this type of work.


Apart from the times that I want to use the 70-200mm f/2.8, the 17-50mm on a 50D is all I take with me most of the time to shows, it's the only lens I need.

Over the past couple of years, I've found two good uses for the 18-55 kit lens.

1. When I loan out a crop camera- it's what they get...
2. Kept it mainly because I knew sooner or later I would have sold or given the t1i away- which means that that person would need a lens- so I kept the kit for that occasion. As little as one would get for it- I figured selling it would not net enough to make it worth the effort.

As far as the OP is concerned, you really aren't gaining that much going to a f/2.8 17-50. Sticking the kit lens and camera on a tripod and stopping down to f/8 should make the kit lens shine. If I were looking for a different look- I'd probably go wider - with something in the 10-22mm range - something that would give a different look. There is not that much difference between a 17-50 and 18-55 on the wide end nor the tele end. If you think it is going to change much- it will SLIGHTLY change your DOF- but not really that much- unless you are real close to your subject.

Generally a 24-70 is made for a full frame camera.. Can certainly be used on a crop.. Unless you are shooting on the telephoto end of the 18-55, I don't really see how you would use the 24-70 to better effect..

the only reason I'd go with a f/2.8 is if your shutter speed is too slow or you have to go to significantly higher ISO's with your current lenses... Or if you are looking for the shallower DOF. Are you ?

While I do have a Sigma 17-50 OS- and find it to be a nice sharp lens, for the most part- I don't think you will see a lot of difference.. Sharper - to an extent- yes. If all you feel that you are missing is sharpness- then go get it- you will be happy with it.

you may be better suited with a canon 15-85, it will get you a bit wider plus add some length also its very sharp.

Mainly i was wanting it for the 2.8 across the board aperture. And either way it would allow me to have to kit lens around for my gf to use on the 1000d if im using the 60d. Looks like from what everyone is saying the 17-50 is the better choice. After this purchase its time to start settin aside for the 70-200 2.8.

I recently bought a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM and have used it on both my 5D3 and 60D and I have to disagree with kin2son as mine is sharp. It's not just for use on FF as a crop body will use mainly the centre of the lens, which is usually the sharpest part of the lens, so if you're wanting to shoot between an equivalent view of 38mm to 112mm then this lens may be for you.

However, the 17-50 f2.8 has OS which the 24-70 does not and is around £100 cheaper and will also give you good photos from your 60D or 1000D as well. I went for a 24-70 as it goes better with my 70-200 IMO and is also compatible with my 5D3.