Sigma 18-35 1.8 vs 17-50 2.8 for general purpose lens

Trying to see what forum thinks about this comparison. There are multiple 17-50 versions (Canon, Sigma and Tamron)available with F2.8 and IS. Sigma 17-50 version seems to match Canon version with cheaper price. Where as sigma 18-35 is very expensive for novice like me. There are interesting discussion about sigma 18-35 short zoom , missing 35-50mm for being a general purpose lens and usefulness of F1.8 at 18mm.

General use - 17-50mm

Specialised wide low light monster - 18-35mm

I was in the same boat, and decided to go for the 18 - 35, over the canon or the sigma 17 - 70.
I simply went though my photos over the past 12 months, and saw that i was already shooting around the 30mm mark, so it seemed to be the better choice at the time.

Build quality is second to none, and always nice have 1.8 at your disposal.
Def not disappointed!

kin2son wrote in post #16734553
General use - 17-50mm

Specialised wide low light monster - 18-35mm

You lose 1mm at the wide and 15mm at the long, but gain f1.8 over f2.8. That is really the only differentiator to be looked at other than budget. Both are general use, but each person has to assess the focal length and budget items independently for their own needs. I never found image stabilization on the wider lenses all that useful, I just punch up the ISO a stop or 2 to compensate.

I have had my 17-50/2.8 OS and 30/1.4 non Art before the. 18-35 came out and I did seriously think about trading both in for it. However I don't want I give up the stabilization for when I shoot video even if it has almost no function for my use with stills.

gall551 wrote in post #16734584
I was in the same boat, and decided to go for the 18 - 35, over the canon or the sigma 17 - 70.
I simply went though my photos over the past 12 months, and saw that i was already shooting around the 30mm mark, so it seemed to be the better choice at the time.

Build quality is second to none, and always nice have 1.8 at your disposal.
Def not disappointed!

Did you notice any focus issues with 18-35 and 60D. Not sure if Rebels can keep up with 18-35 focus requirements. My sigma 30mm 1.4 (old) one has front focusing issue.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16734777
You lose 1mm at the wide and 15mm at the long, but gain f1.8 over f2.8. That is really the only differentiator to be looked at other than budget. Both are general use, but each person has to assess the focal length and budget items independently for their own needs. I never found image stabilization on the wider lenses all that useful, I just punch up the ISO a stop or 2 to compensate.

Hi TeamSpeed,
IS might not be useful my photographic needs (taking pictures of people during gatherings). It might be useful for quick videos. Do you think, price will come down after some time (once initial enthusiasm dies down) for this lens. Looks like, it is back ordered for lot of retailers.

FEChariot wrote in post #16734835
I have had my 17-50/2.8 OS and 30/1.4 non Art before the. 18-35 came out and I did seriously think about trading both in for it. However I don't want I give up the stabilization for when I shoot video even if it has almost no function for my use with stills.

Thanks for your feedback. I have 30mm 1.4. Wondering, which one you use most between 17-50 and 30mm 1.4.

I went from the sigma 17-70mm to the sigma 18-35.

My fear is that I would miss 36mm-70mm. The reality is I like having f1.8 (actually I rarely use the lens wide open. I'm usually at f2) more then I like having the extra range.

With that said though, I do like having my 50mm with me in case I do want a little more reach (again, usually at f2 with that too)

khwaja wrote in post #16735220
Thanks for your feedback. I have 30mm 1.4. Wondering, which one you use most between 17-50 and 30mm 1.4.

The zoom by a long shot. It's sharp enough wide open where I don't feel the need to stop it down, so the prime only gets used when I want or need 1.4-2.5.

khwaja wrote in post #16735169
Did you notice any focus issues with 18-35 and 60D. Not sure if Rebels can keep up with 18-35 focus requirements. My sigma 30mm 1.4 (old) one has front focusing issue.

I assume you meant 600D, not 60D since you list the 600D as your camera. I have my 18-35 mounted on my 60D and I can tell you it a very big and heavy lens. On a 600D you will primarily be supporting the body on the lens not the lens on the body. I also have an older SIgma 30mm f/1.4 and and had to take it to Sigma to address a front focusing issue I was having with it. While there are occasional auto focus misses with the 18-35, I found the AF on this lens to be much more accurate and consistent then on my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is like having a bag full of primes.

mwsilver wrote in post #16735421
I assume you meant 600D, not 60D since you list the 600D as your camera. I have my 18-35 mounted on my 60D and I can tell you it a very big and heavy lens. On a 600D you will primarily be supporting the body on the lens not the lens on the body. I also have an older SIgma 30mm f/1.4 and and had to take it to Sigma to address a front focusing issue I was having with it. While there are occasional auto focus misses with the 18-35, I found the AF on this lens to be much more accurate and consistent then on my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is like having a bag full of primes.

I find it very strange, how Sigma seem to have more AF issues with their primes, than zooms.

mwsilver wrote in post #16735421
I assume you meant 600D, not 60D since you list the 600D as your camera. I have my 18-35 mounted on my 60D and I can tell you it a very big and heavy lens. On a 600D you will primarily be supporting the body on the lens not the lens on the body. I also have an older SIgma 30mm f/1.4 and and had to take it to Sigma to address a front focusing issue I was having with it. While there are occasional auto focus misses with the 18-35, I found the AF on this lens to be much more accurate and consistent then on my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is like having a bag full of primes.

I also have the same set up (60D with the Sigma) It is a heavy lens. In fact, it is heavier , by far, than my 70-200. Having said that, it is very sharp across all focal lengths and allows me to take some good low light shots. In regards to the AF, it has come up short a couple of times, but you can always go manual if you prefer. I use back button focus and press it when manually focusing to help with focus confirmation (Wow, too many "focus").....I love my Sigma.

1Tanker wrote in post #16735452
I find it very strange, how Sigma seem to have more AF issues with their primes, than zooms.

I'm taking about the older 30mm prime, not the current one which like the 18-35 has much more consistent AF. The EX version was very hit and miss. Too many of them also had front/back focus issues. My first copy was decentered and returned, my second copy back focused and I drove out to Sigma on LI to get it adjusted. In most real world situations it's AF was fine, but it has problems with small targets, especially if they are low contrast and it was even worse with small low contrast targets in low light. Other than those specific conditions the AF of the old 30mm was pretty decent.but the 18-35 seems to be much better in that regard and the AF is almost, but not quite, as consistent as my Canon 15-85.

gv0861 wrote in post #16735688
I also have the same set up (60D with the Sigma) It is a heavy lens. In fact, it is heavier , by far, than my 70-200. Having said that, it is very sharp across all focal lengths and allows me to theretake some good low light shots. In regards to the AF, it has come up short a couple of times, but you can always go manual if you prefer. I use back button focus and press it when manually focusing to help with focus confirmation (Wow, too many "focus").....I love my Sigma.

Completely agree. I also manually focus with the aid of a Katz-Eye split prism focus screen. It's expensive and there are some caveats when using it with slower lenses but it really makes manual focusing much easier. There, of course, is also Live View which uses the sensor for focusing and is more consistent than AF through the viewfinder. Like you, I also absolutely love my 18-35!