Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro or 18-125mm DC for Street Photos?

NicholasN · 01-12-2009, 08:54 PM

I am really getting into this street photography stuff and want to know which of these two lenses would suit me better? I like the focal range of the 18-125 but the 17-70 will be better in low light and indoors work as well as macro too. Will I really need the 55mm focal length?

frank · 01-12-2009, 09:15 PM

I've had both lenses, and I'd choose the 1770 over the 18125 anytime. The 1770 is a far better lens imo.

Several street candid photos I took during a trip to Phillipines a couple of years ago:

NicholasN · 01-12-2009, 09:18 PM

All I can say is.... WOW!!! amazing images....!!!

frank · 01-12-2009, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by NicholasN

All I can say is.... WOW!!! amazing images....!!!

Thanks

I got alot more here if you are interested:

philippines_2007 Photo Gallery by Frank at pbase.com

Most were taken by K10D+Sigma 1770, only very few were taken by DA50200.

garth1948 · 01-12-2009, 11:04 PM

Sigma 18-125 is my walkaround lens. Covenience of zoom range outweighs smaller aperture.
After all - it's the subject that is important.
Image taken last weekend at the local zoo through very thick glass -

joele · 01-13-2009, 02:47 AM

I agree with Frank, I have also owned both in Pentax mount and the 17-70mm would be my pick..

Sthan · 01-13-2009, 03:06 AM

I'm a happy user of the 17-70 too... I've been to Canada for vacation last summer, and shot 1900+ photos, 90% of which with this lens (the others with a 100-400). But also in general, I use this lens most of the time and especially between 30 and 50mm it's wonderfull! (For a macro shot of a bee you can check my introduction, other shots -mostly with this lens- you can find in my gallery here at pentaxformus: User Photo Gallery - Uploads Posted By Sthan)

NicholasN · 01-13-2009, 04:27 PM

Ok now I have a question, I have found a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX DG for a great price. Seeing it is f/2.8 and and EX lens would this be as good if not better?

*nostatic* · 01-13-2009, 04:38 PM

For street I prefer a small prime, but it depends on your style and preference. I have taken some good shots with my 50-135*, but I was sitting rather than walking. To me there issues are around size/weight and unobtrusiveness. My current favorite is 43ltd as I don't have to get too into the mix, it is long enough to get some intimacy while still wide enough for tight spaces if I can't move much. 35ltd is also a good one because it'll do macro in a pinch.

NicholasN · 01-13-2009, 05:05 PM

Unfortunately I don't have the finances right now to buy a prime and a zoom. But I intend on buying a good quality zoom so that I can get as much use from it as I can.

asdf · 01-13-2009, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by NicholasN

Unfortunately I don't have the finances right now to buy a prime and a zoom. But I intend on buying a good quality zoom so that I can get as much use from it as I can.

DA 17-70 F4 SDM is sharp, has low chromatic aberration at the wide end when compared to other zooms, has constant aperture, has a rubber sealed mount and is VERY quiet. Right now, I don't think this lens will come off my camera frequently, unless I want to make gimmicky shots. Also, I don't think I'll buy another AF lens without SDM. I'm still in the process of "testing" this lens. There's a review on photozone.de.

SpecialK · 01-13-2009, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by NicholasN

Ok now I have a question, I have found a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX DG for a great price. Seeing it is f/2.8 and and EX lens would this be as good if not better?

I would be worried that it is not wide enough.

Mechan1k · 01-14-2009, 07:48 AM

I have the Sigma 28-70mm DF f/2.8 ... an older version of the DG.
It's large ... and heavy. And sometimes I jsut wish it was wider as well.

I have handled a 17-70 ... and it was a nice lens indeed .... colours and contrast were great (better than my 28-70mm) ... lighter as well.

If i had the choice again ... I'd go the 17-70 for sure ... yeah it is a fraction slower at the long end ... but i doubt it is much difference (the 28-70 is soft at f/2.8 @ 70mm anyway).

Sthan · 01-14-2009, 08:59 AM

I would agree with SpecialK, a 28mm corresponds to a 42mm in 35mm cameras, which is much closer to a "normal" than a true wideangle, I guess that the good price could be son of a kind of unusual positioning for a zoom lens. Maybe (just thinking out loud, and if sharpness is good enough, I don't know) it could be a "flexible" option instead of a prime in the 50-70ies?