So I purchased the Sigma 17-50. Any real need for the Nifty Fifty?

As the title states, I purchased the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. I can't see taking this lens off of my camera now because it's a great lens. Are there any situations when I would actually need to use my Nifty Fifty instead of the Sigma? In my limited experience, it seems that the Sigma can handle anything that the 50mm can?

You'll need it when you need to shoot at aperture faster than f/2.8.

Tomash wrote in post #11607328
You'll need it when you need to shoot at aperture faster than f/2.8.

Yeah, I guess that's just it; I'm not sure I will need too. I took some test shots with the Sigma at 2.8 in pretty low light and they turned out as good as the nifty at 1.8. Could just be my novice ability not knowing how to properly use the 50.

Your Sigma should be just fine most of the time but I'd keep the 50 around because there will still be occasions where you would benefit from the bigger aperture. After all, its cheap enough that you're not exactly tying up a big investment of cash if you don't use it a lot.

Might as well hang onto it as a backup, it isn't worth much.

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

My initial plan was to sell the 1.8 and Sigma flash I have and put the money toward the 430EX II speedlite for it's better build, smaller body and faster recycling time.

IQ with the nifty 50 is superior to the sigma... not to mention the larger aperture...

The diffence in 1 stop could mean the difference in using ISO3200 or 6400....pretty big in my opinion.

the 50 1.8 has AF issue in really low light. It hunts. So you may not gain really. Bigger aperture, but can not get proper AF. But it is cheap.

focus.pocus wrote in post #11607600
IQ with the nifty 50 is superior to the sigma

It doesn't seem superior...

I haven't performed any scientific tests to prove that, mind you, but I used the 50 for seven months and the Sigma for a couple days and the shots I've taken with the Sigma just seem sharper.

shoturtle wrote in post #11607636
the 50 1.8 has AF issue in really low light. It hunts. So you may not gain really. Bigger aperture, but can not get proper AF. But it is cheap.

Yes, exactly. I think that may be the difference in why I seem to be getting better images with the Sigma thus far. Low light doesn't seem to mess with the Sigma AF where the 50 tends to hunt.

Keep it for the IQ if nothing else

deronsizemore wrote in post #11607669
It doesn't seem superior...

I haven't performed any scientific tests to prove that, mind you, but I used the 50 for seven months and the Sigma for a couple days and the shots I've taken with the Sigma just seem sharper.

Maybe I'll have to check out some more sample images from the Sigma...my copy of the 50 is pretty sharp. I suppose it's possible that you have a soft copy given the build quality on them.

eb314 wrote in post #11607676
Maybe I'll have to check out some more sample images from the Sigma...my copy of the 50 is pretty sharp. I suppose it's possible that you have a soft copy given the build quality on them.

Here to you go: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=886454 and http://www.flickr.com/​search/?q=sigma%2017-50&w=all

True, may have just got a bad copy of the 50. At the time of purchase, I was more clueless than I am now with photography (isn't saying much) and didn't even realize you could get bad copies of lenses.

as has been said, you will get very little for selling the nifty fifty, and you never know when you might need the extra bit of speed. I rarely use mine but there is really no need to get rid of it.

indeed the 50 is probably my least used lens, but knowing it's always there JIC is always reassuring

that and being able to throw it in a pocket because its so light makes it a great "minimal impact on space/weight" lens

Sell the 50mm f/1.8 and get a 50mm f/1.4 instead. Two stops of difference is definitely worth it.