[DaveE]

Hi

I need some advice -



I use a Canon EOS 500D and will be looking to upgrade to probably 7D in the next year. I did consider 5D mk2 but I mainly do sport photography & concluded that whilst not full frame the faster motor-drive, cropping factor and number of focussing points (I thought) were more of a benefit than the full frame....?



I own a Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5 and a 100-400L series zoom & I want to replace my standard Canon zoom 18-55 3.5-5.6



I am looking at either the Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX DC OS HSM or Sigma 17-70 2.8/4 DC macro OS HSM. I was thinking about the limitation of going with digital only lenses & also I was wondering about macro facility and would it be any good on these general purpose lenses?



I need it for general shots including squad shots of players, landscape, portraits etc



I keep reading conflicting views.



I was thinking it would cost me c £500



I have read the 17-50 is very good but is it any better than the 17-70 which is much cheaper.



Have I overlooked a great quality lens?



Any strong opinions out there?

[koulang]

[quote name='newboldimages' timestamp='1301952805' post='7375']

Hi

I need some advice -



I use a Canon EOS 500D and will be looking to upgrade to probably 7D in the next year. I did consider 5D mk2 but I mainly do sport photography & concluded that whilst not full frame the faster motor-drive, cropping factor and number of focussing points (I thought) were more of a benefit than the full frame....?



I own a Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5 and a 100-400L series zoom & I want to replace my standard Canon zoom 18-55 3.5-5.6



I am looking at either the Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX DC OS HSM or Sigma 17-70 2.8/4 DC macro OS HSM. I was thinking about the limitation of going with digital only lenses & also I was wondering about macro facility and would it be any good on these general purpose lenses?



I need it for general shots including squad shots of players, landscape, portraits etc



I keep reading conflicting views.



I was thinking it would cost me c £500



I have read the 17-50 is very good but is it any better than the 17-70 which is much cheaper.



Have I overlooked a great quality lens?



Any strong opinions out there?

[/quote]

I own the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 with my Canon 500D. This lens is very sharp, but you have to make sure that your copy is good one. I experienced with the first copy of my lens was sharper than my second copy especially at frame edge even at the widest aperture, but I returned it back because its focusing accuracy was error. Before I bought this lens, I also tested Sigma 17-70mm OS at the shop and did a rough comparison. I found that the 17-70 lagged far behind the 17-50mm especially wide aperture.

[Guest]

Hi,



I am looking for a similar lens for my D7000 and have done some researches.

I found out (not my own experince):

- IQ of Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS far better than Sigma 2,8-4/17-70 OS at 50 and 70mm wide open

- all other settings: similar IQ

- IQ of Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS better than Tamron 2,8/17-50 VC

- IQ of Tamron 2,8/17-50 (non VC) better than Tamron 2,8/17-50 VC

- IQ of Tamron 2,8/17-50 (non VC) slightly better than Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS



So its up to you:

best IQ and price, but no OS/VR and suboptimal AF: Tamron 2,8/17-50 (non VC)

very good IQ, OS, very good AF, highest price: Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS

if you want to use 70mm for dreamy portraits, good price, OS: Sigma 2,8-4/17-70 OS



Lars

[Guest]

I looked again at the-digital-picture.com and have to add:

If you want to use the lens mostly wide open and/or at 50mm:

- IQ of Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS better than Tamron 2,8/17-50 (non VC)

So it's difficult to decide which one is better.

Lars





[quote name='Lars' timestamp='1301988877' post='7384']

Hi,



I am looking for a similar lens for my D7000 and have done some researches.

I found out (not my own experince):

- IQ of Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS far better than Sigma 2,8-4/17-70 OS at 50 and 70mm wide open

- all other settings: similar IQ

- IQ of Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS better than Tamron 2,8/17-50 VC

- IQ of Tamron 2,8/17-50 (non VC) better than Tamron 2,8/17-50 VC

- IQ of Tamron 2,8/17-50 (non VC) slightly better than Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS



So its up to you:

best IQ and price, but no OS/VR and suboptimal AF: Tamron 2,8/17-50 (non VC)

very good IQ, OS, very good AF, highest price: Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS

if you want to use 70mm for dreamy portraits, good price, OS: Sigma 2,8-4/17-70 OS



Lars

[/quote]

[thxbb12]

I can only speak for the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 as it's the only lens I have among these.

Most people say it's soft at 70mm f/4.5, but I beg to differ. Maybe my copy is exceptionally good?

Judge for yourself and tell me what you think. The pic below was taken at 70mm wide open (f/4.5) with a Pentax K10D:







100% crop:





I find it plenty sharp and definitely sharp enough for portraiture.



[quote name='Lars' timestamp='1301988877' post='7384']

Hi,



I am looking for a similar lens for my D7000 and have done some researches.

I found out (not my own experince):

- IQ of Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS far better than Sigma 2,8-4/17-70 OS at 50 and 70mm wide open

- all other settings: similar IQ

- IQ of Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS better than Tamron 2,8/17-50 VC

- IQ of Tamron 2,8/17-50 (non VC) better than Tamron 2,8/17-50 VC

- IQ of Tamron 2,8/17-50 (non VC) slightly better than Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS



So its up to you:

best IQ and price, but no OS/VR and suboptimal AF: Tamron 2,8/17-50 (non VC)

very good IQ, OS, very good AF, highest price: Sigma 2,8/17-50 OS

if you want to use 70mm for dreamy portraits, good price, OS: Sigma 2,8-4/17-70 OS



Lars

[/quote]

[DaveE]

Thank you for your replies and images which have been very helpful.



It appears that i am looking at the right two lenses and the others on the market maybe slightly behind.



The extra reach of the 70mm appeals but I don't want to compromise on quality. How does the macro function work on this lens?



Another thought was to get a 50mm 1.8 canon prime lens too - I understand they are quite cheap?



Still confused though!

[Klaus]

[quote name='newboldimages' timestamp='1302107620' post='7454']

Thank you for your replies and images which have been very helpful.



It appears that i am looking at the right two lenses and the others on the market maybe slightly behind.



The extra reach of the 70mm appeals but I don't want to compromise on quality. How does the macro function work on this lens?



Another thought was to get a 50mm 1.8 canon prime lens too - I understand they are quite cheap?



Still confused though!

[/quote]



The 17-50/2.8 is a very fine lens - if you can get a decent sample. Alternatively consider the EF-S 15-85mm maybe. Remember that lens speed is a very relative thing on an APS-C DSLR. At 50mm f/2.8 you've still a fairly deep depth-of-field (equiv to 80mm f/4 on a full format camera). That's neither fish nor meat as we say here in Germany.

I'd probably rather go with a slow speed zoom which gives you range in combination with a fast prime - like the 50/1.8 or one of the 50/1.4s.



Klaus

[DaveE]

Thanks Klaus



love the expression - neither fish or meat - but i had overlooked the point so thank you.



Dave

[koulang]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1302108888' post='7455']

The 17-50/2.8 is a very fine lens - if you can get a decent sample. Alternatively consider the EF-S 15-85mm maybe. Remember that lens speed is a very relative thing on an APS-C DSLR. At 50mm f/2.8 you've still a fairly deep depth-of-field (equiv to 80mm f/4 on a full format camera). That's neither fish nor meat as we say here in Germany.

I'd probably rather go with a slow speed zoom which gives you range in combination with a fast prime - like the 50/1.8 or one of the 50/1.4s.



Klaus

[/quote]



Either Sigma 17-50mm or Canon 15-85mm is fine. I definitely love these two lenses over the 17-70mm OS. However, I have read a lot of users on the 15-85mm. They said the IQ was very good, but some copies had poor focusing accuracy. Only the users of any cameras that are able to micro-adjust can be happy with this variation. Canon 500d doesn't have micro-adjustment, so if you get the copy that doesn't fit your focus, you'll regret.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Koulang' timestamp='1302154724' post='7464']

Either Sigma 17-50mm or Canon 15-85mm is fine. I definitely love these two lenses over the 17-70mm OS. However, I have read a lot of users on the 15-85mm. They said the IQ was very good, but some copies had poor focusing accuracy. Only the users of any cameras that are able to micro-adjust can be happy with this variation. Canon 500d doesn't have micro-adjustment, so if you get the copy that doesn't fit your focus, you'll regret.

[/quote]

No, you won't. Then just do what one anyway should do.. let Canon calibrate it under warranty. Or exchange it in the shop.