Anyone using a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8?

dakkon76 · Oct 7, 2011

So, after enduring a long week at work and getting quite a bit of overtime and double-time, I think I'll have enough on this next check to buy myself a 7D

(I wish I was more motivated to work extra all the time...) Since I'm selling my XSi with it's kit lens, I would only be left with my 2 primes. I decided that I'd look into a decent zoom to start out with for taking some landscapes and shots of the kids, etc with.

After comparing the Sigma to the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 it sounds like a lot of people who've reviewed the lens are pretty happy with it. I'm wondering if anyone here has been using it with good results? Since I won't have anything that's wider than 50mm (cropped, even), I'm wondering if this is the way to go. Since it's the difference between basically working 1 shift or 2 shifts, I wouldn't cringe too bad at going with the Canon over the Sigma but, from what I read online, about the only negative of the Sigma is that it doesn't have manual focus override like the Canon does... but I haven't really used this too much on my 2 lenses that have it, either.

Nikon_Josh · Oct 7, 2011

I will be getting a Sigma 17-50 2.8 myself at some point, I have to say looking at all the reviews I came to same conclusion. This review is the one you need to check out- it answers your question for you.. here goes..

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 vs Canon 17-55mm f2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 « Darwin Wiggett

Derrel · Oct 7, 2011

Nikon_Josh said:
I will be getting a Sigma 17-50 2.8 myself at some point, I have to say looking at all the reviews I came to same conclusion. This review is the one you need to check out- it answers your question for you.. here goes..

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 vs Canon 17-55mm f2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 « Darwin Wiggett

Good Lord...that overpriced Canon has its lunch handed to it by a Sigma in a lot of those tests...no wonder Canon's reputation as a lens maker is still so middlin'...

Texas Parrothead · Oct 7, 2011

I bought the Sigma 17-50 2.8 Nikon mount in March and have been loving it ever since. This was was on my camera 99% of the time....until I just got a 24-70 2.8 to play with. I don't think i will ever sell it. I currently have enough money to upgrade to the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and won't (that is how much I love it). IQ is great. Low light capability is great (for a zoom). Build quality is great. You won't ever regret buying this lens!!

dakkon76 · Oct 8, 2011

But now you prefer the 24-70? I was all hot for the Canon 24-70, but now i worry that the 24mm would end up not being wide enough on a crop body, being effectively 38mm.

shootermcgavin · Oct 8, 2011

I was actually thinking about getting that 17-50, but the 24-70 sounds like it'd be a better fit. Quiet a price jump though. I compared the Tamron to the Sigma 17-50 and the photos I took were identical, the one thing that I did notice was the zoom on the Tamron is really sticky and the Sigma has a lot smoother zoom. My 18-270 Tamron is sticky in the same way I think it's just the way they build them. I haven't got a sigma yet but I'm anxious to try it for the next lens.

Texas Parrothead · Oct 8, 2011

I went through very undecided and stressful period with the 24-70 f2.8. I bought the Nikon version ($1700) from adorama. I like it but it wasn't as sharp as I thought it would be at 2.8. So I bought a brand new copy of the older Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Macro (Non HSM) ($599). I was very surprised that it gave great results at 2.8 in low light. Not as good as the Nikon, but not good enough to justify $1100 difference. The Nikon went back and the diff went into a savings account for future purchases. That being said, if i could only keep either the 17-50 or the 24-70 I would keep the Sigma 17-50. It has OS and I think it does have better image quality than the 24-70. Don't get me wrong, I like the both but I think the 17-50 has slightly better image quality. The reason I like the 24-70 is my style of shooting is to get in close and the 24-70 makes that a little easier. I like to zoom in on my little ones and not make it apparent I am shooting pics. I do notice that I don't use the wide portion of the 17-50 that much. so the 24-70 suits the focal range better for me. I know my rant probably isn't helping you decide to much. It is just my own personal insight to both of these lenses and my style of shooting. Good luck!

dakkon76 · Oct 8, 2011

Not at all, I appreciate the rant. I know that the majority of the work I do with either of those 2 will be pics of people so I find myself wondering the same thing - do I really need it quite so wide. Both of the primes I have I really enjoy shooting with... so part of me wants a lens that will reach as far as my 85mm does. At the same time, it doesn't take that much to switch between the 2 and having 17mm for doing some landscapes or close-up wide angles may come in handy; not to mention the lack of IS on the 24-70 was something that turned me off. Granted, you can shoot fast at 2.8, but if you want to increase your DOF then you're stuck with a slower shutter speed in lower light.

Texas Parrothead · Oct 8, 2011

yeah, One thing i have noticed with the 24-70 is i can't shoot at as slow a shutter speed in low light at 2.8 as I can with the 17-50. With the 17-50 i can easily go down to 1/30 sec, as long as the kids aren't moving to fast. If they are sitting playing quietly then 1/30 works fine. With the 24-70 i need to keep it above 1/60 or 1/80 to get a sharp image. If the kids are running and jumping then it is a mute point for either lens, shutter speed has to increase.

Big Mike · Oct 9, 2011

Is that a new SIgma lens? They used to have the 18-50mm (Tamron had the 17-50mm).

Big Mike · Oct 9, 2011

I wouldn't say that the Canon had 'its lunch handed to it'....he did say that the Canon was sharper, corner to corner...especially in the F2.8-F11 range...which is where it's likely to be used most.

Of course, it's more expensive...the Canon/Nikon lens always is. The Canon will have a better resale value as well. But it is really good to see another high quality lens in this range.

I have the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (non VC) that he mentions is the best bang for your buck in that group. I'm thinking of selling it if anyone is interested. I need to fund some full frame lenses.