Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs. Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5

Which would you choose...

Ive read hrs worth of info on these two lenses here on the forum and they seem to be very comparable. for the constant 2.8 you trade 20mm of zoom.. so what is more important for you? Or should i just fork out the extra $ for the 17-40L
thanks!

it's not what is important to us...it should be what is important to YOU! the lens you end up getting depend on your preference and the type of shooting you do.

both are good lens. however, there might be more QC issue with the 18-50 than the 17-70. You will find more stories of people receiving bad copies of 18-50.

i got the 17-70 and have been very happy with it. I find the 17-40 too short at times, so i prefer the extra reach to 70mm. i'm quite glad i returned the 17-40 and got the 17-70. it also saved me about $300! =)

I'm going through the same thing.

Constant 2.8 is going to be more useful to me, because I'll be using it for all around indoor/outdoor use without flash. I love available light photography.

If you are going to be using the 17-70 mostly outdoors in good light you won't need the 2.8 and you'll get the extra range which isn't needed indoors.

I may go for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 because I've read here that it has slightly sharper IQ than the Sigma.

Good luck!

After selling my Canon EFS 17-85 iS, I got a used Sigma 18-50 EX 2.8 and than I went out and got a new 17-70 DC macro. I ended up selling the 18-50, but I liked it for it's low light focusing abilities. Both lenses have their advantages. I personally like the versatility of the 17-70... Whichever you get, will serve you well. Cheers!

John