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

deronsizemore wrote in post #11607698
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.

There probably is a a good bit of variation from one copy to the next in such a low-cost lens. I was clueless when I owned a 50 1.8, but at the time I felt that image quality was very good when I pixel-peeped it. What I didn't care for as much was the look of the bokeh, but that's a little more subjective.

dmnelson wrote in post #11610179
There probably is a a good bit of variation from one copy to the next in such a low-cost lens. I was clueless when I owned a 50 1.8, but at the time I felt that image quality was very good when I pixel-peeped it. What I didn't care for as much was the look of the bokeh, but that's a little more subjective.

I did get a lot of sharp pics with the 50 though. Don't want to give the impression that it is a terrible lens for me. I think the biggest part of my problem with a lot of the photos is that I tried to shoot everything at 1.8 before I realized that stopping down would actually give sharper results. The Sigma has the OS feature too and I've got a lot of sharp images with slow shutter speeds, e.g., 1/15. No way they'd turn out sharp with the 50 in low light with that slow of shutter speed.

Thanks again.