Canon 35mm f2 IS vs Sigma 17-50mm f2.8

Which is worth to go? Canon 35mm f2 or the Sigma 17-50 f2.8?
For indoor use and as walk around purpose.

The 35 IS is Canon's best non-L prime lens. Period.

If you are using the T4i in your sig, I would go with the Sigma. It will serve better as a walk-around and will be a nice step-up from your kit 18-55.

You also have the 40mm, so you will most likely find the 35 redundant. Unless you absolutely need f2 over f2.8.

I have the EF 35/2 IS and the Tamron 17-50/2.8.

But if so, go with the sigma 18-35 instead.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16888271
But if so, go with the sigma 18-35 instead.

That is also $300 more expensive than the other two.

The 35 IS is the best (sharpest, sharpest to the corners, fastest, lightest, smallest, IS'd) lens I own. I think it is the perfect WA for FF. It is also useful on crop, but FF wide open is where it shines. And that sets it apart from the crop-only 18-35. The only downside I can think of to this lens is that it makes me REALLY want a 24L II. My wallet keeps telling me I can't afford that. Or is that my wife?

To me, this is a really weird question to ask other people. If you can't answer this on your own, by taking an honest look at how and what you want to shoot, I'd sit on the funds until you know what'll fit your wants/needs best.

Keith_D wrote in post #16888258
You also have the 40mm, so you will most likely find the 35 redundant.

I think that it's much more likely that the 40 will become redundant (except in situations where size may be a factor), not the other way around. I have a 40 and am still sitting on the fence w/r/t the 35 IS. If I do buy the 35, though, the 40 will be listed for sale in short order, as the size difference isn't a big factor for me.

Keith_D wrote in post #16888258
If you are using the T4i in your sig, I would go with the Sigma. It will serve better as a walk-around and will be a nice step-up from your kit 18-55.

You also have the 40mm, so you will most likely find the 35 redundant. Unless you absolutely need f2 over f2.8.

have to agree here. In general, the 35 is a gem but for your expressed purposes the zoom will be more appropriate

IMO, generalizations on what constitutes a "walk-around" lens is just as bad as generalizations on what constitutes a "landscape" lens, so I wouldn't let either term pigeon-hole me in to a specific recommendation without some elaboration.

robienyshe wrote in post #16888082
Which is worth to go? Canon 35mm f2 or the Sigma 17-50 f2.8?
For indoor use and as walk around purpose.

Heya,

I've had plenty of wide to normal zooms, and I have lots of primes. At the end of the day, for my own preferences, I take my 35 F2 IS over the zooms and over the 40mm F2.8. I like the pancake, but the 35 F2 IS is simply sharper, and a stop faster, with 4 stops of IS. I like the field of view better too (both on crop & full frame). On crop it's fairly "normal" and on full frame it has that slightly wide look, coupled with F2, for nice isolation.

Zoom is the way to go if you want convenience of changing focal lengths.

Prime is the way to go if you want every bit of sharpness you can get, and want it with faster aperture (and sharp at that aperture, at that), with IS.

Very best,

WhyFi wrote in post #16888444
IMO, generalizations on what constitutes a "walk-around" lens is just as bad as generalizations on what constitutes a "landscape" lens, so I wouldn't let either term pigeon-hole me in to a specific recommendation without some elaboration.

The key is the term "general walk around", which ordinarily has the connotation of a lens that is a jack-of-all-trades, that is light and unobtrusive enough to lug around all day.

Just as any lens can be used for landscape, or portrait, or whatever - what constitutes "best practice" is what applies here. A long telephoto can get nice tight landscapes of a few trees on the serengetti, but would not be appropriate for sweeping mountain vistas shot from the valley floor. That is, when one generally refers to landscape lens they are referring to a wider lens. So, the generally accepted convention for a "general walkaround lens" would be a zoom lens that goes moderately wide to moderately telephoto. With on you could get a nice head and shoulders portrait, as well as a shot of a cathedral on a city street.

General walk around, the 35 will not be very wide on a crop sensor. It is a stop faster and has IS but that can't make it wider, and you can't always back up. 17-50 is a much better general use FL.

WhyFi wrote in post #16888360
To me, this is a really weird question to ask other people. If you can't answer this on your own, by taking an honest look at how and what you want to shoot, I'd sit on the funds until you know what'll fit your wants/needs best.

That's what I think about it as well. It's apples and cantaloupes.
There's a list of advantages to both lenses, depending on where it's used and what the subject is.
I have a sneaking hunch though that if you have to ask this question, then the zoom is probably your better bet.

timbop wrote in post #16888677
The key is the term "general walk around", which ordinarily has the connotation of a lens that is a jack-of-all-trades, that is light and unobtrusive enough to lug around all day.

Just as any lens can be used for landscape, or portrait, or whatever - what constitutes "best practice" is what applies here. A long telephoto can get nice tight landscapes of a few trees on the serengetti, but would not be appropriate for sweeping mountain vistas shot from the valley floor. That is, when one generally refers to landscape lens they are referring to a wider lens. So, the generally accepted convention for a "general walkaround lens" would be a zoom lens that goes moderately wide to moderately telephoto. With on you could get a nice head and shoulders portrait, as well as a shot of a cathedral on a city street.

Says who? Further, we're not exactly talking about walking around with a 200mm equiv FoV on one hand and a standard zoom on the other - we're talking about a standard zoom vs a standard prime; for decades, many photogs walked around with nothing but a ~50mm, so I find it weird that, on an photography enthusiast site, someone would suggest that it's such an odd choice that it should be dismissed out of hand.