Sigma 17-50mm Yes-No?

Mygixxer · Dec 27, 2017

Hello all,
Recently upgraded and got a canon 80D. It wasn't the camera I really wanted, but it checked the box to everything I truly needed. Was difficult to make the responsible choice and get what was realistic instead of extend myself into getting something that was more of a "want".

I have used a canon 18-135mm for the majority of my shots because its very versatile for what I have been shooting. I want another lens with a little bit of range, but with a faster aperture. As much as I'd like to drop $1000 on a lens, I just dont have that available and am looking for the most bag for my buck type lens. I'm not huge on prime lenses, but the nifty 50 f/1.8 is in the back of my mind to grab at some point along the way.

Through my research, the sigma - 17-50mm f/2.8 seems to fit right within the perimeters that I'm looking for. I'm well aware of the hatred towards the moving focal ring and how loud it is during video. However, I wouldn't be looking to shoot a ton of video with it and if I were, I would most likely be doing slow panning shots with manual pulls. I've seen this lens go anywhere from $289-$360 new and as low as $200 used.

Is there another lens that I'm overlooking that would be a good comparison to this lens or even perhaps a better option?

stk · Dec 31, 2017

I have that Sigma for Nikon, and I'm not overly impressed. Stopped down it's just about as sharp as anything else, but at wider apertures it's not. And the image stabilization is not doing a whole lot, either.

That being said, I'ts good enough that I haven't sold it, and I'm still using it, I'm just not sure if I would buy it again.

To get similar specifications in this price range I think Tamrons 17-50mm f/2.8 VC is your only bet. If it's better, I don't know. You could also see if you can find a used Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS.

Or just keep your 18-135mm and buy a fast prime.

SquarePeg · Dec 31, 2017

Hard to offer advice without knowing what you shoot. Are you shooting portraits? Vacation photos? Landscapes? Children? Sports? Street? A bit of everything?

I bought the Sigma 17-50 when I had my Nikon and ended up returning it. I know it’s highly recommended by many but I was unimpressed as well. I do most of my shooting outdoors and much preferred the shots I got with my Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.

The 50 1.8 is pretty much a must have, IMO.

Destin · Dec 31, 2017

Meh. My 17-50 made a few good images but most of them were soft and underwhelming.

beagle100 · Dec 31, 2017

Mygixxer said:
Hello all,
Recently upgraded and got a canon 80D. It wasn't the camera I really wanted, but it checked the box to everything I truly needed. Was difficult to make the responsible choice and get what was realistic instead of extend myself into getting something that was more of a "want".

I have used a canon 18-135mm for the majority of my shots because its very versatile for what I have been shooting. I want another lens with a little bit of range, but with a faster aperture. As much as I'd like to drop $1000 on a lens, I just dont have that available and am looking for the most bag for my buck type lens. I'm not huge on prime lenses, but the nifty 50 f/1.8 is in the back of my mind to grab at some point along the way.

Through my research, the sigma - 17-50mm f/2.8 seems to fit right within the perimeters that I'm looking for. I'm well aware of the hatred towards the moving focal ring and how loud it is during video. However, I wouldn't be looking to shoot a ton of video with it and if I were, I would most likely be doing slow panning shots with manual pulls. I've seen this lens go anywhere from $289-$360 new and as low as $200 used.

Is there another lens that I'm overlooking that would be a good comparison to this lens or even perhaps a better option?

the sigma is almost as good as the Canon 17-55 with similar features but less expensive. If it's for portraits consider a longer large aperture prime. (85, 100, 135, etc)
And for a "little bit of range" consider one of the 70-200 zooms
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Designer · Dec 31, 2017

Mygixxer said:
Is there another lens that I'm overlooking that would be a good comparison to this lens or even perhaps a better option?

Hello!

I'm not at all familiar with the Canon line, but if you had asked about Nikon lenses, I might have been able to help some.

I certainly would not "like" to drop $1,000 on a lens, either, so I don't. I look for the best quality lenses by reputation and personal observation), and then I locate a minty used copy for about 1/3 to 1/4 of the cost of new. Sometimes even less.

Personally, I wouldn't purchase any Sigma lens, regardless of the price.

Mygixxer · Jan 3, 2018

Thank you all for the direction. Might hold off then and just go with a 50mm 1.8 for the meantime. I'm using this mostly for portraits and close ups objects for instagram. Lots of Bike objects and poses.

jcdeboever · Jan 3, 2018

It is going to be hit or miss with Sigma from my experience buying both new and used. Every one of mine had focus accuracy issues. I no longer have the system but my 17-50 2.8 was better on my D3300, than my D7200. Both focused to the left looking through view finder so I had to compensate the position of the focus point. If you do get one, buy it new and immediately print out a focus test chart and test on a tripod. A brick wall will do in a pinch. I just find it easier to see where its focusing using a test chart. Also set up a table with a few objects lined up on it from front to back to check for front or back focusing. I'm not sure your buying decision, I assume it's price. I don't know enough about Canon to offer a better alternative.

SquarePeg · Jan 3, 2018

Mygixxer said:
Thank you all for the direction. Might hold off then and just go with a 50mm 1.8 for the meantime. I'm using this mostly for portraits and close ups objects for instagram. Lots of Bike objects and poses.

If you're taking pics of close up objects, you may want to consider the Sigma 17-70. It's a variable aperture but - it is a "macro" lens in that it can focus super close. Again not a 2.8 across the board like the 17-50 but one of my favorite inexpensive lenses.

Taken at 70mm

Mygixxer · Jan 3, 2018

That's a great shot.

I scored a 50mm f1.8 Mk1 today (metal ring) which was brand new in box for $80 on Craigslist. Couldn't pass it up. So I'll play with this lens for a while and see if I still feel the need for something with some range.

ac12 · Jan 3, 2018

I would have said to THINK about a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 prime.
Each focal length (35 and 50mm) has a purpose (pro/con). So YOU need to think about which focal length matches best what you shoot.
I was in this predicament, and finally after much thinking went with a 35mm. And I am happy with that decision. I think the 50 would have been too long for me.
But for $80, I would have jumped at the 50 also.

I have the Nikon equivalent, the 18-140 for daylight general purpose use and the 35 f/1.8 for low/dim light shooting.
My next option is a 70-200 f/4, for the faster speed in lower light.
The 18-140 hits f/4 at 27mm. Any longer and it is smaller than f/4, and hit f/5.6 at 100mm.
I considered the f/2.8 lens, but the f/2.8 lens is 2x the price and 2x the weight of the f/4 lens. So the f/4 lens won.

khakoo · Jan 3, 2018

Mygixxer said:
It wasn't the camera I really wanted

Sorry this is off topic, but now I'm curious. What was the camera you really wanted? :icon_mrgreen:

Mygixxer · Jan 4, 2018

khakoo said:
Mygixxer said:

It wasn't the camera I really wanted

Click to expand...

Sorry this is off topic, but now I'm curious. What was the camera you really wanted?

I really wanted a 5D mark iii. But the 80D has been a great upgrade from my t2i that I have used for 7 years.

beagle100 · Jan 4, 2018

Mygixxer said:
Thank you all for the direction. Might hold off then and just go with a 50mm 1.8 for the meantime. I'm using this mostly for portraits and close ups objects for instagram. Lots of Bike objects and poses.

that will work (portraits and a little closer) - refurbished Canon 50mm 1.8 STM - $99

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless