sigma 17-70 or 50mm 1.4 - Which is a better indoor lens?

I'm looking into getting a value indoor lens. I'm really stuck between the 50 f1.4 and the sigma 17-70 f/2.8

The sigma offers a wider range with no crop, but the quality is not as good as the 50 at f2 or smaller. I'm not big on shooting scenes, but I'd like the flexibility of getting the whole room if I needed. I'm shooting with an XTi.

Also I'm losing fast AF with the 17-70, am I right?

You should consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 instead of the 50. I've found mine to be just about the right FL on a crop camera for indoor low-light situations. The 17-70 has trouble focussing in low-light environments.

As a prior owner of the 17-70 I can say that it's not exactly a slouch when it comes to AF speed, but it's not going to be as fast as the 50. That being said though, it's about 100 times more versatile. Unless your room is a stadium, you're not going to get it all in one shot with the 50. Honestly, it would be beneficial to own both but if I had to chose which one to have first, it would be the 17-70. It's just more versatile.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is another alternative you might consider for lower light shooting.

how about an EF35 F2?

for in door , depending on your room size though, I think the 50mm F1.4 is a bit too long.

I got the EF50mm F1.8 before , but as I realize that the focal length on a crop sensor camera like my XTI is uselss for me at least , I never use it .

Although the EF50mmF1.4 is alot better than the F1.8 in terms of optical quality and AF accuracy,the same focal length gives you quite limited use.

So I think you should not waste your money on this , I really do not get it when people tell newbies like myself to get it over those greatly versatile cheapo zooms.

The EF50mm F1.8 and 1.4 are both kinda cheap but what if you never use the focal length of it ?

Plus , the EF35 mm f2 , at least it has the better focal length for in door , I dont know about the AF and IQ of it , though.


Also, there is Sigma 30mm F1.4.


Having all siad above, I realize that for me , at least for my uses , those primes and carrying all primes of all different focal lenghth is unrealistic , while changing lenses , I will misss a lot of once-a life-time kinda shots , I already did 3 times.

So I am saving up some money to buy a great zoom like EF-S 17-55IS.

Take a look at the EF-S17-55Is threads , all are so sharp and contrasty color that show you how great the lens is , I was blown .

fianlly,I wanna have one similar color tone and contrast level on all my lenses so for me , getting a Tamron is no longer a good solution.

Tamron has distinctive yellowish warm tone , which is definitely different from the cool Canon color tone that I think all Canon lenses basically share , including the Kit.

I dont know about the Sigma , but let me know if you buy it and test it , I am curious about how it compares to EF-S17-55IS or 17-85 IS in term of color tone.

Unless you use flash then the Sigma or Tamron are not going to be that useful indoors unless light is decent or you up the ISO, and then Tamron will be better anyway. I go for that if you wanted a zoom.

A good fast prime should be in most kit bags tho'. I got the Sigma 30mm 1.4 as it is very fast, good IQ, nice to use, and well priced. The field of view is also more flexible than the 50mm 1.4. There is a BIG difference between 30mm or 50mm and a 17mm lens. You need to be clear about you priorities.

liza wrote in post #2813036
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is another alternative you might consider for lower light shooting.

I agree. The Sigma is too slow at the long end, and the 50 is too short. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is the perfect cross between the two.

I just got done researching the suggested lenses.
I'm very interested in the tamron 17-50 and the sigma 30 now.

Thanks to everyone for pointing me in the right direction!

In case you're interested, the new Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 does macro to 1:3; The Tamron is 1:4.5. I've not seen a side-by-side comparison of the two lenses, so I don't know how the new Sigma optically compares to the Tamron.

Two concerns with indoor shooting - available light and distance.

The 50 is better with light, but is kinda long on the distance. The 17-70 is better at distance but not as good with light. So niether would be particularly good indoors. The Sigma 30 is good and also the Canon 28 f/1.8.

sr005 wrote in post #2812990
I'm looking into getting a value indoor lens. I'm really stuck between the 50 f1.4 and the sigma 17-70 f/2.8

The sigma offers a wider range with no crop, but the quality is not as good as the 50 at f2 or smaller. I'm not big on shooting scenes, but I'd like the flexibility of getting the whole room if I needed. I'm shooting with an XTi.

Also I'm losing fast AF with the 17-70, am I right?

Well, since no one else asked, I will. Are you talking available light or flash photography? If flash, then I believe the premium should be placed on focal length range, which would lead to a zoom lens. If available light, then wider aperture at a suitable focal length should win the day. I use the Sigma 30 f/1.4, the Canon 50 f/1.4 and, when space allows, the Canon 85 f/1.8. I'd recommend any of the three based on the size of your indoor venue.

i have both 17-70 and 50 F1.4
i use the 50mm for indoor all the time....unless i want marco!
the 17-70 i use for outdoor, landscape and walkaround!

i tried use 17-70 indoor, but most of the time i get not as sharp pix or i have to turn up the ISO high.
i think it is great to have both!for the next lens i will get 70-200 range

I have used the 50 1.4 at some weddings in very low light conditions and have gotten some very nice mood shots with the 50 at 1.4 with 800 and 1600 ISO. I would agree that its alittle long for any type of room but it was great for dance shots and group shots in the banquet hall.

Though I haven't tried it I've heard some good things about the sigma 30 1.4. Just make sure that you give yourself some time to learn with either one, if you're not used to fast lenses there is a greater chance that you will miss the focus due to the limited DoF.

Cheers
Josh

I was leaning on the 17-50mm, thinking I need to fill out my ranges. (I currently only own the 24-105mm - 1:6 crop. So 38mm's my widest FOV)

I shoot natural light and I'm now thinking, based on the advice, that I should probably get the sigma 30 f1.4. I'm more concerned about getting sharp images working with room or window light.

Thanks again for all the wisdom. I truly appreciated!

I use the 17-70 as my standard lens and it's probably the best all rounder you can have. Check out my Valencia set on flickr - www.flickr.com/photos/​chalkie -the vast majority of those shots were taken with the 17-70

Graham