Sigma 17-50 2.8 buyers remorse before even using it...

[SquarePeg]

Ordered the 17-50 2.8 - it's due to arrive tomorrow. I've been wondering for a while how much better it is than my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 which I love but has it's issues in low light... I've seen so many posts about how great the 17-50 is and had a sudden GAS attack the other day so decided to give it a try.

Now I'm wondering if I should just return it and stick with the 17-70 which has produced some of my favorite shots the past few years. I do shoot quite a bit in the 50-70 range which I will no longer have covered if I use the 17-50 as my vacation/walk around lens. Of course, ideally I'd get the Nikon 24-70 since the quality is there and the focal lengths covered better suit my shooting style but the price difference is a whopping $1400+ and I just can't justify that...

Just wondering if anyone who has the 17-50 and has/had the 17-70 can compare the 2 and also if anyone who uses the 17-50 feels like the reach just is not there for vacation/every day photos.

Thanks for your input.

 

[pixmedic]

I had the Tamron non-VC version and loved it.

what your really getting is the ability to set the aperture at 2.8 and be able to keep it there throughout the zoom range.
thats really the big advantage.

when we went strictly full frame i got a Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 and it was a great lens.


so yea...this post was totally not useful to you, but if its any consolation, i think a constant aperture lens is always good to have.

 

[Peeb]

I had the Tamron non-VC version and loved it.

what your really getting is the ability to set the aperture at 2.8 and be able to keep it there throughout the zoom range.
thats really the big advantage.

when we went strictly full frame i got a Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 and it was a great lens.


so yea...this post was totally not useful to you, but if its any consolation, i think a constant aperture lens is always good to have.

I agree- 2.8 throughout sounds pretty sweet.

 

[kap55]

I used to have the Sigma 17-50 with a D90 and thought it was a great lens - especially for the price. It might be worth having a look at some of your current photos in the 50-70 mm range and try and determine how much difference the extra 20 mm really makes at the long end. I personally don't think it's a dealbreaker because it's so nice to have constant f/2.8 and because it is a very sharp lens. I have never used the Sigma 17-70 so can't give a direct comparison.

 

[Frankinfuji]

Constant f2.8 will transform your images at the longer focal lengths, by giving you full control over aperture and dof at all focal lengths. No need for any regrets.

Sell your old lens?

 

[SquarePeg]

Constant f2.8 will transform your images at the longer focal lengths, by giving you full control over aperture and dof at all focal lengths. No need for any regrets.

Sell your old lens?

Not sure if I'll sell it. I like how close to my subject I can get and still focus. I use it as a "macro" for some of the abstract and flower stuff. We'll have to see if the 17-50 has that same flexibility.

Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts on this.

 

[kap55]

Enjoy the lens. Pretty sure that lens is either AF or MF - there is no MF override. Not a problem at all as long as you remember where you are.

 

[jcdeboever]

I had the 17-50 2.8 sigma, it was good in low light. However, I had to compensate for it's tendency to back focus. On my D3300.... So I always put my focus square where I normally would and the one click down and 1 click over to the right. It was unusable on my D7200. I no longer have that issue using Fujifilm. Probably just my copy and a lemon D7200, glad to be rid of them honestly.

 

[RichieT]

I have the 17-50 which I use on my D300 and I love this lens. Never had focusing issues with it and it is tack sharp. Much better than my Nikon 50 1.8. I went full frame so I don't get much use out of it anymore but still a terrific lens. I used a 18-135 as a walk around lens but would leave the 17-50 on sometimes. A couple steps closer should cover the 20mm difference. If that's not enough you probably need more than 70mm anyway. Enjoy it.

 

[fmw]

Sounds like good choice to me. My favorite lens is a constant aperture wide angle zoom.

 

[KmH]

f/4 to f/2.8 is only a 1 stop gain.

 

[SquarePeg]

Took the lens to Easter dinner yesterday and used it a bit. It did focus faster than the 17-70. Images look sharp on the screen but haven't downloaded anything yet. Will take a closer look at the results today to see how I feel about it. I'm heading on vacation tomorrow so will take it with me and take the 17-70. I'll give each of them a whirl on subsequent days and try to decide for sure when I get back. One plus for the 17-50 it's much slimmer than the version of the 17-70 that I have and it feels a lot lighter. Will have to check the specs to see if I'm imagining that.

 

[SquarePeg]

I had the 17-50 2.8 sigma, it was good in low light. However, I had to compensate for it's tendency to back focus. On my D3300.... So I always put my focus square where I normally would and the one click down and 1 click over to the right. It was unusable on my D7200. I no longer have that issue using Fujifilm. Probably just my copy and a lemon D7200, glad to be rid of them honestly.

You had a lot of issues with that 7200! I love the refurb 7100 that I got and have not had any problems with it or any of the lenses I've been using on it.

I have the 17-50 which I use on my D300 and I love this lens. Never had focusing issues with it and it is tack sharp. Much better than my Nikon 50 1.8. I went full frame so I don't get much use out of it anymore but still a terrific lens. I used a 18-135 as a walk around lens but would leave the 17-50 on sometimes. A couple steps closer should cover the 20mm difference. If that's not enough you probably need more than 70mm anyway. Enjoy it.

Thanks for the input. I'm going to do some test shots today to see how much of a difference it really is.

f/4 to f/2.8 is only a 1 stop gain.

Good food for thought thanks!

 

[DaveAndHolly219]

I love my 17-50 2.8. Never used the 17-70 but I would absolutely miss the constant 2.8.

 

[Destin]

I have the 17-50 2.8 and almost never use it. Don't like the cheap feel of it.. but it does give very good sharp results. I tend to shoot wider or longer the majority of the time.

Eventually I'll upgrade to a 24-70.. if the Nikon version is too expensive you should look into the Tamron 24-70. It's very good from what I've read and about half the price.