First shots with the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and first impressions...

[robertwsimpson]

First off, some photos (click for 100% samples):
17mm f/2.8 (no editing other than exposure correction and RAW-JPG conversion)



50mm f/2.8 (no editing other than exposure correction and RAW-JPG conversion)


First, let me say that $350 for a lens that will do constant 2.8 aperture is pretty much a no brainer. Just for the ability to take low light shots at different focal lengths, it was totally worth it for me. The image quality is pretty good too. Even the colors are more vibrant than the kit lens this is replacing. It's a fantastic lens. That being said, there is one disappointing thing. In my research, I came across a snip-it that said this lens had a weak left side. I didn't really know what this meant, since it doesn't make sense to me that a lens would have a weak side when the glass elements are round and theoretically should be the same quality in concentric circles around the center point of the photo. Sure enough, if you look at the photos (especially the park bench, you can see that the left side is slightly softer than the right. This trait appears to improve slightly as the lens is stopped down. All in all, I am very impressed with this budget piece of glass. It will definitely last me until I can afford some big boy glass!

Hope this helps!

Here are more photos:
47mm f/5.0


19mm f/4.0


50mm f/4.0


50mm f/4.0

 

[Felix0890]

Where did you get it? They're selling on Amazon brand new for $200. I might get it over the Tamron version and save myself a couple hundred bucks.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Ah crap, I totally typed sigma instead of tamron.

This is the one I got:
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1267021643&sr=8-1"]This is the one I am talking about.[/ame]

 

[brianT]

Ah crap, I totally typed sigma instead of tamron.

This is the one I got:
This is the one I am talking about.
This is the one I am talking about.

That's funny because after I read through the entire post and looked at the photos I was wondering why I never heard about a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 (constant aperture). Then it dawned on me that just recently Sigma announced one:
Sigma releases 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM: Digital Photography Review

Then I was wondering how you were able to purchase it so soon after the press release. But it's Tamron after all.

 

[robertwsimpson]

yep, I'm an idiot


seriously though, it's a great lens!

 

[R6_Dude]

Did you buy it used? Amazon and BH has it listed for $459. I was considering this lens but the VC version. Did you consider it as well?

 

[robertwsimpson]

I bought this used on Craigs List.


I was considering the VC version, but I had read that the IQ was worse than the non-VC version, and for these focal lengths, VC is not a necessity for me.

 

[robertwsimpson]

What the heck is this!?

 

[icassell]

Hmmmm ... those images look awfully familiar ...

 

[icassell]

I have had the Tamron 17-50 since 2007 as my walkaround lens. I had it for my 30D and now my 7D. I don't see it as a compromise at all and, in fact, love it. It is solidly built and has excellent IQ. I could probably afford "big boy" ("L") glass, but have felt no rush to go out and spend for it.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Do you notice the weak left side like I do?

Man, I'd consider cutting off a toe to shoot video through this lens.

 

[PackingMyBags]

Love my copy. It only gets dull in the far corners at 17mm. After that it goes away.

 

[icassell]

Nope, I haven't noticed a weak side on my copy.

I actually haven't tried video with it yet. I've barely used the video on my 7D since I got it.

 

[robertwsimpson]

hm interesting. The left side is not bad enough to worry me at all. I can only really tell when I am pixel peeping.

 

[myfotoguy]

Another happy owner of this lens. After 2.5 years the front where you screw in the filters started to wobble on mine. It has a 6 year warranty, but I I didn't send it in, because I use mine all the time. So I found some directions somewhere and tightened it myself. My copy is great, have not noticed any issues, other than the build quality not made like the "big boy" lenses.

I have considered VC too, but not sure. The new Sigma looks interesting. But I rarely shoot museum type stuff at low light where I can't use a triopod, but it would still be a nice to have, even at shorter lengths.

Anyway, someone earlier mentioned it's not a compromise. I don't think it really is either. Enjoy your "new" lens!