Sigma 17-50 or 17-70: reviews and advice?

MaGalleryMaGallery Member Posts: 4
Hi everybody,
I have a Canon 650D and I'm not happy with the 18-55 kit lens. I also have a 55-250 which I'm quite happy with, and the wonderful 50mm 1.8 Canon lens.
Anyway... Considering what I already have, I was thinking of replacing my 18-55 with a lens which hopefully will give better results in terms of colour, contrast and luminosity, and I've come across 2 Sigma lenses which seem to fit the bill:
Sigma 17-50 2.8
OR Sigma 17-70 2.8-4
What I'm looking for here is a luminous, polyvalent lens that would be suitable for landscapes.

Any advice? Has anybody ever tried these and what is your feedback?
Thanks in advance...
M.

Comments

  • I have the Sigma 17-70 as a standard lens in my Nikon kit. I find it is much sharper than the Nikon 18-55 and is one of my most used lenses. A good lens for landscapes and nature photography, a little weak on the macro side. Quality build, I can recommend as good value for the price.
  • lesbidrawnlesbidrawn Member Posts: 1
    Typically the lenses sent with a camera "kit" are not top drawer stuff. The coatings, grind and quality of the glass are "ok" at best. And their internal bits can be dodgy as well.
    If you really love photography, do yourself favor and buy nikon's best glass. eat peanut butter and jelly for a month if you have to...the difference in image quality, tonality, contrast, etc is significant. And while zoom lenses are convenient, don't discount primes. The image purity is worth walking a few hundred yards to frame the shot. yeah, good glass is expensive but worth it. Plus, they tend to retain high resale value while the cheap stuff resells for pennies on the dollar. I just sold a bunch of my old Nikon lenses: 50mm 1.2, 180 2.8 and a 300 2.8...all manually focused. I was very surprised what they fetched.
    I see people put all their money into the camera body and then go cheap with the lens. In truth, it should be the other way around.
    My only experience with Sigma was a 16mm 2.8. It was very good. Sadly, I wasn't. The benefit was sorta lost.
  • MaGalleryMaGallery Member Posts: 4
    Thanks for your input! At the moment I'm looking for a lens suitable with Canon though.
    I read reviews on those Sigma lenses and it seems the 17-50 is a bit better than the 17-70, especially in terms of dealing with the focus...
    Would 17-50 still be versatile enough, in your opinion?
  • With your other lenses all being 50mm+ (including the prime), I'd choose the 17-50. No experience with it but as you say, reviews are 'a bit better' and the 2.8 full range is a good feature. I chose the 17-70 because I wanted the extra bit to get up close to my 70-300mm.
  • Essy D PhotographyEssy D Photography Stoneham, MAMember Posts: 6
    Just received my 17-50 yesterday so I haven't done much with it yet, but I love my test shots! :)
  • MaGalleryMaGallery Member Posts: 4
    Great news!! Feel free to give me more feedback once you've used it more! =)
  • Tim UeltzenTim Ueltzen Member Posts: 26
    I have the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and the 50-150 2.8 I really like both of them. I use the 50-150 most of the time. Both lenses produce great images. I used the 17-50 with natural light on a tri-pod to take most of these photographs. tluphotography.com/p913528589
  • Kevin KrowsKevin Krows United StatesMember Posts: 1,454
    edited May 2015
    @MaGallery
    For stills, I think Sigma lens would be fine. However, once you start photographing a moving subject, things will start to change. Most newer Nikon and Canon lenses have chips in them that work hand in hand with the newer cameras AF systems. This chip set is proprietary so the newer AF systems will not respond as well as a dedicated lens.

    While Tim's images are very nice and shot with a 2.8 lens, his Aperture in some of his samples was set to f16 with a shutter of 1/25th and shot from a tri-pod. Others were set to f2.8, f8, and points in between. Keep in mind that a tri-pod and an increased depth of field can make any lens look like a hero.

    Here's my bottom line when it comes to lenses. Take every review of a lens with a grain of salt. While some my love it .... just as many will hate it. Some are on a limited budgets while others have professional day jobs and money to burn. Finally, some people have little to NO real experience in photography while others have a ton of experience and believe their advice is the final word. In other words, it's difficult to qualify the reviewer.

    Many reputable camera dealers have a good return policy (14 days or so). So why not just buy the darn lens, test it yourself, and if you don't like the results .... return it. The only thing it will cost you is the shipping to send it back. If you need more time to evaluate the lens, just rent one.

    I shoot the Canon 1DX camera bodies and only use Canon lenses. That's because 90% of what I shoot is moving like a freight train or jet fighter. Sigma lenses, or any other non-Canon lens, simply can't keep up with fast moving targets (I know because I have personally tested them). I also know several sports photographers that are very happy with their Sigma 2.8xxx lenses on older Canon bodies and are very happy with them. Problem is, none of them know any different because they have never used the newer Canon cameras or lenses so they don't know what they are missing (or not missing).


    At the end of the day, the best review will be the one you do first hand.
  • Josh CruzJosh Cruz Member Posts: 2
    MaGallery said:

    Hi everybody,
    I have a Canon 650D and I'm not happy with the 18-55 kit lens. I also have a 55-250 which I'm quite happy with, and the wonderful 50mm 1.8 Canon lens.
    Anyway... Considering what I already have, I was thinking of replacing my 18-55 with a lens which hopefully will give better results in terms of colour, contrast and luminosity, and I've come across 2 Sigma lenses which seem to fit the bill:
    Sigma 17-50 2.8
    OR Sigma 17-70 2.8-4
    What I'm looking for here is a luminous, polyvalent lens that would be suitable for landscapes.

    Any advice? Has anybody ever tried these and what is your feedback?
    Thanks in advance...
    M.

    I've used the 17-70mm on both the 100D and the 80D. I can say it's slightly above average. It's too soft wide open but otherwise, it's a decent piece of glass. Definitely better than the other option you were looking at, which is not an Art lens.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Join our live streaming Zenfolio Customer Support Q & A session on You Tube!

Thursday's at 2pm EST 11am PST

NOTE: You can sign in using your Zenfolio account! To link both accounts, make sure both email addresses match before signing in.
If you have a new feature idea that you think would be a great addition to the Zenfolio service please submit it to our feature voting system.