this one or the sigma 17-50 2.8?
608744
I think the 17-50 is 2.8 fixed with 17-70 its 2.8-4 depending on distance. I shoot weddings primarily and love the 17-70 because I get great macro shots of the ring, closeups of bouquets etc, but at the same time I can get great group shots and being between 2.8-4 I just raise ISO when Im closer to 4. But if you prefer consistent aperture and don't care for macro the 17-50 is great too.
608745
I have both for my Pentax K-5iis. The 17-70mm practically stays on my camera as I find I need it for its macro abilities as well as the extra reach. I suggested it to a friend who owns a Nikon when she was ready to upgrade from her kit lens and she loves it. I don't feel like f/4 at the longer end of the 17-70mm is limiting for most of my images. I use it outdoors shooting various subjects and indoors at concerts every week. I use the 17-50mm mainly during school classroom events because of its f/2.8, but always wish it had more zoom.
608746
I have both of these and they are excellent lenses. This is my profession and it I were to choose go with the 17-70, unless you don't need the extra reach and you mostly work in low light.
608747
Hi Gaston, It all depends on what you want to do and the camera you have since the 17- has a 2.8 across the range, and the 17-70 goes from 2.8-4 which works wonderfully with my 60d.
608748
I have both for my Nikon D300s. Sigma 17-50 2.8 is a much better choice. Range in slightly narrower but indoor performance, portrait photography, and bikes are better.
608749
I've owned both. For the obvious, the 17-70 has a more useful FL, while the 17-50 has the constant f/2.8 throughout its range. Physically, the 17-70 takes 72mm filter vs 77mm filters, the weight is lighter by 20% (470g vs 565g) and its a smaller lens which may balance on your APS-C camera better (79mm x 82mm vs 84mm x 92mm). The 17-70 will give you also a psuedo-macro capability at a 1:2.9, which is rather useful. Personally, another point to note (and I've substantiated this myself after coming across it in a few Google blurbs) is that 17mm on the 17-50 is REALLY not 17mm, but 18mm when looked at closely. May not be a deal breaker, but to some it is and the lens really is, in practice, an 18-50 lens. I found the color rendition of the two lenses to be similar (lovely, in fact) and I find the 17-70 to be sharper across the frame at 50mm than the 17-50 is, which is not surprising as that's the farthest reach of the 17-50's FL and it's expected to suffer a tad there. If you haven personally used the new Sigma Contemporary and Art series lenses, I suggest you give them a try. Excellent materials, tight tolerances, well made. I ended up keeping the 17-70f/2.8-4 C and selling the 17-50 f/2.8. I have f/1.8primes to cover the need for low light shooting should it arise, and the extra FL is more important to me
608750
i don't understand your question. i'm guessing that you want to know which one is the best choice. the best one will depend on what you do. i got the 17-70 because i notice that most of my photos will be shoot at between 18 and 80mm. i didn't want to switch between the kit lenses all the time.. also i wanted a bigger lens diameter for holding filters. i notice that that 17-50 is 77mm when my 17-70 is only 72mm.
236738
The Sigma is a fish eye (180 degrees diagonal viewing angle) , while the Canon is an extreme wide angle (no fish eye distortion) and therefore much more expensive.
155655
Love my Sigma. It is fantastic lens for the money. If video is a requirement, I recommend the Sony. The OSS makes for much better video. BTW - when I shoot video, I change to 16-50 lens with OSS.
1183538
The canon has 1.2 vice 1.4 and slightly less chromatic aberration (purple color fringing) when wide open. The sigma is much faster to focus and just as sharp. It's not so much a "quality" as paying a premium for the canon L red ring and the extra glass needed to achieve 1.2.
501125
I've got the sigma, it's a great lens and a good focal length. (48mm on crop cams) If you are going to be indoors, the f1.4 is handy. I've got the 50mm f1.8 and the extra 2/3's makes a difference when you're already at slow shutter speeds.
256621
I don't know about the 18-250......a wider angle and a shorter telephoto. I have the 28-300 and have never needed a wider setting. Sigma makes a great product, you will be happy.
2060897
I'm not familiar with the sigma however the cateye is small and the digits on the second line is also quite small and can be a bit challenging to read on the fly
2071193
Yes. It is WAY better in every aspect. Although it costs a bit more, the image quality is much higher with the Sony lens. The Sigma is very soft, especially above 300mm. I tried the Sigma and was not satisfied with the images. My Sony 70-400 never disappoints.
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
1780601
One other option for you might be the 50mm 1.2L. It's just as superb (and erratic) as the 85mm 1.2.
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
24766
I own both lenses and while the 18-300 is the best walk around lens, the 50-500 is my favorite lens for wildlife and particularly birds. It obviously has 200 more mm reach which results in around 40% more magnification and it is tack sharp throughout it's range. The Sigma 50-500 stays on my camera 90% of the time.
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
1901982
Soccer Hoolian nailed it, get both. The 50mm is irreplacable and I adore my 1.8, it's just louder and more plastic-feeling than the 1.4
1752184
I use the sigma 18-35 with a generic focal reducer I will be getting the metabone speed booster soon
1298394
These are very different lenses; if you want an "upgrade" to your kit lens, the 17-85 has a similar range; while the sigma is a wide-to-tele zoom lens;In my opinion, the best "upgrade" to the kit lens is the 17-55 lens that Canon makes.
1966946
I ended up going for the Sigma. So far I'm pretty happy with it; focus seems OK on my T1i, and the lens seems quite well put together. Not getting dinged extra for a bag and a lens hood is nice too.