Sigma 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 17-70 2.8-4? Low light people shots?

[Nikon_Josh]

After swearing that I would not buy a high end mid range zoom, my attention has been swayed. I have been given a job by a friend to photograph their 40th birthday in a low light venue.

I have realised that my Sigma 50 1.4 might be very limiting in terms of FOV in such a situation, so am now thinking a 2.8 mid range zoom may be a great option for such a situation. I have read up on the 17-50 2.8 from Sigma, and it seems brilliant. I really am starting to begin a love affair with Sigma lenses! I would consider the Nikon version, but it is stupidly expensive, very heavy and has no VR whereas the Sigma has OS aswell.

But the Sigma 17-70 is quite a bit cheaper, but obviously is a slower lens due to the variable aperture and is not as highly rated as the 17-50. I know if I get the 17-70 I will still want to upgrade to the 17-50 at some point.

The 35 1.8 was on my wish list, but am now thinking the 17-50 will enable me not to miss shots in such a fast paced situation. Lens changes are time consuming when you are taking photos on the spur of the moment.

So what do you guys reckon? Do you think the 17-70 2.8-4 OS will suffice (it is quite a bit cheaper)? Or should I get the lens that makes my heart race slightly.. the 17-50 2.8 OS?

I am going to sell my 18-55 VR and 50 1.8 to fund the purchase, I am also even considering selling my Canon S90 as I have rarely used it since I bought it for £200, I am finding once you get used to DSLR quality it is very hard to even use a compact due to its over processed noise ridden Image quality. Long post I know, thanks in advance.

 

[ghache]

I got the 17-55 f2.8 non-os for everyday use and i used it alot. i heard the non os is sharper than the OS version of this lens
overall its a pretty good lens, f2.8 small and not heavy. I am not afraid to use it during shoots where using a heavy 24-70 is not practical.
Distortion at 17mm wide open isnt bad and its seems to be sharp all over the zoomrange. you wont be disapointed if you buy it.

 

[Nod]

I have the Sigma 17-70 2.8/4.5 DC Macro and it is very sharp. Dyxum rates the 17-50 OS @ 4.50 and the 17-70 @ 4.43. So it seems like a coin flip. Check out KEH and you might be able to save some money. If you've never used them before, they are a reputable company.

 

[Markw]

Hmm..not too sure what gnache is talking about here. Sigma doesn't make a 17-55. But I have seen photos taken with and reviews on both of the lenses you have mentioned here. Te 17-50 is definitely your best bet. It's superbly sharp. I cant wait to get mine.

 

[Jethro]

Can't tell anything about 17-50 but I've had a 17-70 for about a year or so now and it's a great lens. Very sharp, can do some nice bokeh if the light is good or average, fast focusing, I don't think it's slow. Doing good also in low light (if you wish I can post some pictures taken in poor lighting conditions).

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Can't tell anything about 17-50 but I've had a 17-70 for about a year or so now and it's a great lens. Very sharp, can do some nice bokeh if the light is good or average, fast focusing, I don't think it's slow. Doing good also in low light (if you wish I can post some pictures taken in poor lighting conditions).

Thanks Jethro, that would be appreciated.

It seems I do need to look into the 17-70 more, it does seem highly competent. That constant 2.8 aperture is still alluring though.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Hmm..not too sure what gnache is talking about here. Sigma doesn't make a 17-55. But I have seen photos taken with and reviews on both of the lenses you have mentioned here. Te 17-50 is definitely your best bet. It's superbly sharp. I cant wait to get mine.

Thanks for the advice up to now guys!

Mark, just out of interest.. why are you picking the 17-50 over the 17-70?

 

[Jethro]

Here you go (all without flash, taken with my old 450D - with 7D it's even faster and average performance is better)


this was shot at twilight

this is the evening - already dark

 

[Texas Parrothead]

+1 for the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS. I bought mine in March and have been extremely happy with it. So happy with it that i did not feel the need to upgrade to the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 as I don't think I would see much of an improvement. I say get your "dream lens" (sigma 17-50) and don't look back! You will enjoy the heck out of it!!

 

[Texas Parrothead]

Sorry, i should have mentioned that i shoot mine wide open at 2.8 95% of the time and it gives very very good pictures. I am always chasing my little rug rats through the house with it in the evening and it is just fantastic......did i mention i like it? As you can probably tell I am a Sigma man as I love their build quality and the IQ of the (2) 2.8 lenses I have.

 

[Markw]

Hmm..not too sure what gnache is talking about here. Sigma doesn't make a 17-55. But I have seen photos taken with and reviews on both of the lenses you have mentioned here. Te 17-50 is definitely your best bet. It's superbly sharp. I cant wait to get mine.

Thanks for the advice up to now guys!

Mark, just out of interest.. why are you picking the 17-50 over the 17-70?

I've seen the reviews, and have pixel-peeped extensively, which I hate doing, and I have used it for a brief moment. It was a brilliant lens. It's proven many times over. Even Jared Polin liked it. And he is very reluctant to recommend anything besides the best Nikkor, F/2.8 lenses. Usually primes.
.
I love it. And I can't justify double the cost for a lens (17-55 Nikkor) that will likely perform just the same.

Mark

 

[Drake]

Have you considered the Tamron 17-50 2.8? It also seems like a pretty good choice.

 

[Markw]

It is, and has been for quite a while now. But I really love Sigma's HSM. I've never personally used the Tamron, but I like the Sigma. I really have always liked Sigma over Tamron for the particular lenses that I own.

Mark

 

[orb9220]

Yep the Sigma HSM is definitely a tad faster AF than my Tamron 17-50 f2.8. And do love my Tammy but would have been just as happy with a Sigma f2.8. And yep never know when that extra stop or two will just get you by in getting the shot in lower light situations. So variable f-stop zooms are less desirable for my needs.

Optically I think the tamrons tend to be a smig'in tad sharper wide open.
But nothing that is significant enough to select it over the faster AF of the sigma.
.

 

[Markw]

Agreed 100%.

Oh, and make sure you get the 17-50/2.8, not the 18-50/2.8. I own the original version, non-OS, non-HSM, non-Macro. I would definitely recommend the 17-50 over that one. It's far and beyond more sharp. The tokina 11-16 is much more sharp, even wide open with the sigma at f/4-5.6. It's a great lens and has served me well, but the 17-50/2.8 OS is definitely the way to go if you can.

Good luck.
Mark