Sigma Lens Dilemna! HELP!!!

pugnacious33 · Oct 5, 2009

Geez, I just can't ever seem to make up my mind when buying a lens, never able to find that "perfect" lens. I'm replacing a 28-135 sigma.

I'm really leaning toward the Sigma 17-70 macro. Pros here are the good macro close up ratio, the price, and the 70 would be good enough for portraits, which I don't shoot much. Cons are that it is not an EX. I currently have the Sigma 10-20 EX and the sharpness and contrast are top notch.

I'm also looking at the Sigma 18-50 macro. Pros....its an EX. Cons, more expensive and shorter range is less versatile.

I've also considered going with the Sigma 24-70 EX, but it is pretty expensive, not macro, not digital specific, but I wouldn't miss the lower end of the zoom, since I also have the 10-20.

I'm also open to other brands. If the 17-70 was an EX my mind would be made up. Anyone care to help me (or confuse me further)?

JustAnEngineer · Oct 5, 2009

Would the $380 Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 be a possibility?

pugnacious33 · Oct 6, 2009

450 at adorama, I have looked at it, nice lens but no macro.

Update: I found this lens for 380 on BH, and on second look, it does 1:3.9 macro at 13 inches, not bad. I can always add an extension tube for extreme macro. I'm starting to like this, gets good reviews too. Cons are that with my 10-20, i'll be without the 20-28 range. That shouldn't be a problem though.

Thanks for the help.

JustAnEngineer · Oct 6, 2009

1:3.9 isn't much of a Macro rating. The $600 EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM gets much closer.

pugnacious33 · Oct 6, 2009

That's a cool lens, but I want the versatility of the zoom. I could always buy an extension tube.

kajiki · Oct 6, 2009

What mount do you want it in? I had a similar decision, wanted the flexibility of the zoom but also good closeup ability, took the Nikon 28-105 - which gives half lifesize between 50-105.

NateWagner · Oct 6, 2009

Personally I'd definitely recommend getting the Sigma 18-50 2.8. Just make sure you get the most recent HSM version of the lens, it's reportedly much better than their other versions.

I don't think you'll appreciate the extra 20mm as much as you would appreciate the much higher quality lens, faster, quieter, 18-50 2.8 HSM.

pugnacious33 · Oct 7, 2009

NateWagner said:
Personally I'd definitely recommend getting the Sigma 18-50 2.8. Just make sure you get the most recent HSM version of the lens, it's reportedly much better than their other versions.

I don't think you'll appreciate the extra 20mm as much as you would appreciate the much higher quality lens, faster, quieter, 18-50 2.8 HSM.

Yeah, i'm really torn between this lens and one of the non-digital 28-70 2.8s. I've decided I can really do without macro, as I would probably do just as well to use extension tubes or just get a seperate macro lens later on, but the 18-50 has 1:3 which may suit my needs. And I know I want a lens to equal the sharpness and quality of a sigma EX. At this point i'm trying to decide whether I want or need the extra length of a non-digital. The next lens I get will probably be a longer zoom to replace my 400, maybe the 135-400.

PS: I shoot canon.

Dao · Oct 7, 2009

hum ... Canon ... it appears that Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8 for Canon do not have HSM. (vs the Nikon version) From what I read from other members here, the HSM version is better than the non-HSM version. (At least for Nikon mount lens).

For sure, those 28-70mm F2/.8 lens from Sigma or the Tamron and Canon counterpart are all nice.
You can find a comparison here (with Canon 24-105mm)
Juza Nature Photography

pugnacious33 · Oct 7, 2009

Cool, thanks for the link.....and thanks for confusing me even more.

The tamron is impressive. Alot of lens for the price.

I'm taking a second look at the Sigma 17-70. Even though it is not an EX, i've read a few reviews online and many are saying it is just as sharp. Very good on macro too.