sigma 17-70 or 18-35mm

dannylightning · Nov 27, 2015

have someone wanting to buy my D5300 and any lenses that i want to part with..

there are two lenses i would really like to have.. wold love to buy both but i want to bank some of the money.. if i sold off all of my lenses and d5300 body except for my big lens i cold afford both but i think i would rather bank some of the money. trying to decide which one to get if i sell off my stuff.

sigma 17-70 bueatiful images from what i see on flickr, mostly great reviews, not as good in low light as i would like.. that is a nice zoom range, works well with macro.. seems like a nice all around lens for a descent price. seems like a great all around lens with a nice range...

sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 so very good in low light, appears to be super sharp, only zooms to 35mm which may not be great for everything i want to shoot, great reviews. not good with macro which is a minus compared to the other lens, i dont shoot much macro but it would be nice to be able to, i do have some extension tubes. i think this would be my go to lens for car photos, stuff around the house and what not but if i ever want to do landscapes it might not have enough zoom. which is really the main drawback if i get this lens only

jcdeboever · Nov 27, 2015

Look at your previous pics of cars, inspect the xif data, and maybe that will make your choice easier. That's how I decided on my prime; 35mm over the 50mm. I have been happy with the choice. The 17-50 sigma zoom is on my camera mostly but going to a car show or shooting a downtown, 35mm prime will be on my camera.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

jaomul · Nov 27, 2015

18-35 is excellent in its very small range. 17-70 looks good from photos I seen my friend take with that lens. Others may differ, personally I'd like more range with a zoom. I am happy to shoot primes as then I kind of have the mindset of zooming by moving.

Personally if i was buying again I'd probably go for a standard length constant aperture (half way house between the 2 lenses you asked about) like the 17-50mm f2.8 os (which I may at some stage purchase)

SCraig · Nov 27, 2015

I've been very happy with my Sigma 17-70. I bought it new about 5 years ago, and it's seen a lot of races and car shows and everything else over the years. I don't shoot much in low light any longer, f/2.8 has always been plenty wide for me. In fact that lens is the fastest one that I own (except for some 35mm lenses I don't use any longer).

I'd also like to point out that the absolute best equipment you can possibly own is that which makes you happy. You don't have to have the fastest or the widest or the longest or the most compact or the most features. All you have to have is what works for you, does what you want, and nothing more. As with any hobby you can spend an absolute fortune and have a bunch of stuff you seldom use or you can use your head, purchase what you need, and enjoy it.

dannylightning · Nov 27, 2015

SCraig said:
I've been very happy with my Sigma 17-70. I bought it new about 5 years ago, and it's seen a lot of races and car shows and everything else over the years. I don't shoot much in low light any longer, f/2.8 has always been plenty wide for me. In fact that lens is the fastest one that I own (except for some 35mm lenses I don't use any longer).

I'd also like to point out that the absolute best equipment you can possibly own is that which makes you happy. You don't have to have the fastest or the widest or the longest or the most compact or the most features. All you have to have is what works for you, does what you want, and nothing more. As with any hobby you can spend an absolute fortune and have a bunch of stuff you seldom use or you can use your head, purchase what you need, and enjoy it.

there are local car shows, usually they are pretty happening around dark, i guess that is really where the f/1.8 lens would really come in handy. i hate carrying a tripod around. i love my 35mm 1.8 for that but i still found my self needing to step back far from the vehicles i was shooting, some times i could not really get far enough away from them to get the shot i wanted because the were so many people and cars and stuf going on in the parking lot.. so i guess that is where the 18-35mm would really come in handy... if that was a 18-50 i would definitely get that lens but its just not going to be good for everything i dont think..

that new 17-70 contemporary would be great for most of the shooting i would want to do. just probably not great for the car shows at night..

divero · Apr 6, 2016

can I ask, what is the difference between Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 C and another model without C (with golden line on lens).

Thanks

SquarePeg · Apr 6, 2016

I have the "Sigma DC 17-70 1:2.8-4 Macro HSM" (the 2009 version with OS). It's my go to walk around/vacation lens. It is on my camera 80% of the time and always in my bag when it's not. I also use it for my flower macro shots because you can focus with little to no minimum distance required (much closer than it says in the specs when manually focusing using live view). Have never used the other lens you are interested in but would highly recommend the Sigma.

@divero The C (for "Contemporary) is the 2013 updated version. It i s lighter and, according to this link:

"The "C" version of this uses a different optical formula - 16 elements in 14 groups, including FLD, SLD, and 3 aspherical elements - which no doubt accounts for this improvement." Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Contemporary Review

robbins.photo · Apr 6, 2016

One other thing to consider for the D7200, since you have the built in focus motor you might want to take a look around for a Tamron 17-50 2.8 without the built in focus motor. I paid just a little over $100 for mine, so dirt cheap - but man the photo quality was just outstanding.

Since I upgraded to full frame I sold the lens and replaced it with a Tamron 28-75 2.8, but never had any complaints with the Tamron 17-50 on the D7100.

divero · Apr 6, 2016

Thanks for answer. Is there anyone who uses Contemporary edition. I am just worrying if make sense to pay more for C version.

Rick50 · Apr 6, 2016

I like the Sigma 17-70. It stays on my Canon 60D.

weepete · Apr 6, 2016

I also own a sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 "C" which I have had for a year and a bit now. Its a decent walk around lens with a very useful focal range. But (there is always a but) its does IMO lack a bit of sharpness, especially in the corners. Also worth mentioning that the f2.8 only really works to 20 or 22mm ish and it pretty quickly turns into an f4. But its at a good price point.

weepete · Apr 7, 2016

divero said:
Thanks for answer. Is there anyone who uses Contemporary edition. I am just worrying if make sense to pay more for C version.

Yes, the "C" version is sharper than the non "C". I certainly thought it was worth the extra money.

sparelink · May 4, 2016

I really like my Sigma 17-70 "C" as well. I had a 17-50 before and always wanted just a little more range. It is a great every day lens.

ClickAddict · May 4, 2016

I see from your signature you opted for the 18-35mm. Must have picked up the 50-100mm Art as well since then, since it only started shipping end of last month. Those 2 and the 150-600 make a great trio for the crop sensor cameras. (I don't shoot much that long so as tempting as the 150-600 is, I think I'll stick with the other two and my cheaper 70-300 for now)

dannylightning · May 6, 2016

ClickAddict said:
I see from your signature you opted for the 18-35mm. Must have picked up the 50-100mm Art as well since then, since it only started shipping end of last month. Those 2 and the 150-600 make a great trio for the crop sensor cameras. (I don't shoot much that long so as tempting as the 150-600 is, I think I'll stick with the other two and my cheaper 70-300 for now)

how do you feel about your 1.8 art lenses ??? . ill write a little review of mine here... i mainly shoot wild life so the 150-600 is something that i am extremely happy with, that is a amazing lens over all. i get great images and did not need to tune that lens at all. unless your shooting sports or wild life its not really something you would need..

here is my take on these lenses..

the 18-35 1.8 art lens is great. it was a mess wen i got it, i do not think they tuned it at all at the factory.. after i tuned it with the sigma usb dock the thing is super sharp even wide open, i love the colors i get from it, besides a little barrel distortion you have no other unwanted effects, i never see chromatic aberration or anything with this lens. you can focus extremely close to a subject with so its almost good for macro like shots.

i just got the 50-100 1.8 art lens yesterday. it also needed a little bit of tuning with the dock, i am still working on tuning the infinity focal ranges but the rest are all tuned. it seems very sharp over all, image quality is just as good as the other 1.8 art lens if not better IMO, i think the 18-35mm is just a tad bit sharper though. I took a few portrait shots with this 50-100 and they are good.. they were of my mom who would not stop talking or making faces so i ditched them, i was talking head shots and the detail was great.. seems like a great portrait lens and a great lens for anything else too.

sometimes at 100mm hand held i am getting a image that is not as sharp, i am thinking it looks like camera shake, other shots at 100mm are really sharp..it does not have any image stabilization but when i set it on a tripod and do live view at 100mm the focus is dead on and the image is super sharp.... think i was using a shutter speed of around 1/200 and i was at f/1.8 when i was getting what looked like camera shake at 100mm.. at all other focal lengths every image has come out really nice and really sharp, no camera shake going on but it seems like its a little hit and miss at 100mm and 1/200 ish. i would think 1/200 would be a fast enough shutter speed to stop camera shake or what not but i guess its not quite enough so it looks like you need a decently quick shutter speed at the long end. kind of makes me wish it has image stabilization, i notice in really low light shots to keep the iso down i was shooting at 1/40 and f/1.8 with the 18-35mm but you probably cant do that with this lens or your not gonna get a good still image hand held on a slow shutter speed like that..