f/3.5-5.6 with IS, or f/2.8-4.5 with no IS, which is more important for sharpness?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Treymac, May 13, 2008.

  1. Treymac

    Treymac TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Hey guys. I'm looking for a new walk-around lens, and currently it's narrowed down to either:

    Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
    and
    Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC IF Macro

    The max range doesn't matter too much since I already have a 70-300mm, and the macro doesn't matter either because I plan to buy a Canon 100mm macro lens in the future.

    The only things that matter is that one has image stabalization, while the other has a lower stop. Which is more important in getting a sharper image?

    P.s.
    What are "DC" and "IF"?

    Thanks.
     
  2. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I can tell you right now with or without it, the 17-70 will becuase of the narrower zoom range. There are fewer comprises that need to be made in the design.
     
  3. usayit

    usayit No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,523
    Likes Received:
    344
    Location:
    North New Jersey, United States of America
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
  4. RyanLilly

    RyanLilly No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    St. Louis, Missouri, USofA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Also the IS won't help if you can't get a fast enough shutter speed.
    I second the 17-70
     
  5. THORHAMMER

    THORHAMMER TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,789
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    All depends if you want to walk around in low light shooting buildings, or in the sun shooting race cars, or in the sun shooting flowers, or at night shooting race cars.

    no one lens will "do it all"

    Is money an object ?

    Will you be shooting closer or further?

    will these be stationary, and will you be using a tripod at all ?
     
  6. Treymac

    Treymac TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Money is somewhat of an object, probably in the $500 range. Most of my stuff is wider angle anyways, and it's generally done hand held. I plan to take pictures of buildings, but not much in low light. Maybe at sunset at the darkest. And possibly a night shot if I have a tripod. I also plan to take pictures of flowers. I don't think I'll do much fast shooting of things such as race cars. So, most of my stuff is in the day time or stationary things, and if at night, I use a tripod, but still of stationary subjects.
     
  7. THORHAMMER

    THORHAMMER TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,789
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I wouldnt buy either of those lenses, not that they are bad or horrible, but why sacrifice quality for zoom range your not going to use. not to mention the extra weight.

    You asked about sharpness, so Im thinking you want quality !
    For what your shooting I dont think the IS is going to be worth your money. You can rule out any F4 L lens (17-40 or 24-70) within your cost area since the F4 will kill you in lower light.

    Look into the 28-75, or 17-50 pro models that Tamron makes.
    about 400 bucks each. and they are 2.8 all the way through.
    These are very very sharp lenses.

    Trust me you dont want your aperature moving all the time its horrible for
    calculating optimal sharpness on the fly when your shooting.

    If you want to put down 1200 - 1600 $ you should check out the L primes and L wide zooms 17-40 - 24-70 that canon makes. But thats a lot of money for a walk around lens.

    trust me the quality on the wider ranges 2.8 is way better then the 18-200 "super" lens. look at the marketing, they market the one to portrait and landscape shooters, and the "all in one " lenses to tourists.

    Just looking out...
     
  8. Treymac

    Treymac TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
  9. Mystwalker

    Mystwalker TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Since you already have the 70-300, go for the 17-70.
     
  10. soylentgreen

    soylentgreen TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If it's sharpness an performance you seek and with that budget, I would look at the EF 17-40 f/4L. Tack on the EF 50mm f/1.8 for the gap and your set. Sorry for adding more eggs to your basket, but its worth a look IMO.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

2.8-4.5 vs 3.5-5.6

,
3.5-5.6 vs 2.8-4.5
,
does 2.8 vs 3.5-5.6 matter