[blwnhr]

Someone asked this question a while ago but I am selfish so am starting my own thread.

I only have 2 lenses, the Bigma and my trusty Sigma 18-125 which I've had since I first stepped into DLSRs 2 years ago. I really like this lens. I love the range and associated flexibility, but it's time to upgrade.

I am about to buy the Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 because I need the width for the work I'm about to do. I need something to fill the gap from 20mm through to about 70-80mm. I don't want to be busting the Bigma out to get just a little more length.

The other thing is I want a fast lens (F2.8). This just makes things really tricky. I'm not interested in a prime.

After getting the Bigma, which is part of the EX series, and seeing the great colour from this lens I am looking toward this range. Of course I am willing to look at other brands, including genuine Pentax, however budget has to be reasonable.

Has anyone any experience with the Sigma 18-50 EX DC F2.8? This lens covers the focal length I will be using a lot of the time but it's 75mm shorted than I'm used to.

What are peoples thoughts on the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5? What focal length does it change from F2.8 to a smaller aperture? How does this compare to EX lenses?

I plan on keeping the 18-125 as a walkaround lens for non-important things, or if travelling light.

Thanks all in advance.

Adam.

[daacon]

Adam

I have the same Sigma as well as the 70-300 - I more or less replaced both of them with the new Tamron 18-250 3.5 -6.3 XR Di II LD IF MACRO as a more general purpose walk around lens. To date I have been very pleased with the results and I am going to sell my Sigma's I think. Only complaints I have is the zoom extends very easily so when I put it back in the bag I have to make sure the lock is on. Also at 250 gets a little shaky but what do you expect that is a huge range? On the plus side images are great and it is lightweight and very compact.

I also have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di LD ASP IF MACRO based on recommendations here. It is a great lens (macro as well) . Very nice portrait lens - but personally I found that 28mm was not quite wide enough for every day shooting I like , but that is personal for sure

I have read good things about both Sigma's you have mentioned but have no personal experience so will let others comment. Personally I give both my Tamrons a huge thumbs up for the price they are great IMHO.

[Mechan1k]

Have seen so many great images from the 17-70 ... haven't seen so much from the 18-50 (so I am unable to really comment on it).

[blwnhr]

Would I be best to wait until the 17-70 DA lens is released to see what aperture it is?

[egordon99]

I use the Sigma 10-20mm and the Tamron 28-75mm to get my "short" coverage. Don't mind the gap between 20 and 28mm. The Tamron is great (do a search here for lots of praise/pictures/etc..). Good luck!

[shutterdrone]

The Sigma 17-70 is my primary lens right now, and I love it. I can't tell you exactly where it slides out of f/2.8, but it's pretty quickly (around 23mm or so). Mind you, I don't do much 'low light' photography, so its not an issue for me. I primarily shoot from f/8-f/16.

I can tell you this much about it: I have not regretted buying the lens for one second.

!c

[Mallee Boy]

Hi Adam,
Its a perplexing problem isn't it? One I go over a number of times, as I also have the 18-125.

This my kit, in order of purchase: started with *ist DS & 18-125, then came the Sig 135-400, followed by the Sig EX DG 24 f1.8 (low light), throw in a *ist DL & Pentax 18-55 , add a Schneider 50-200 & now add a Pentax DFA 100mm f2.8.

The kit now looks like this: DS & DFA 100 and DL & Sig 24, these lens stay on the cameras....and a pair of good walking boots for zooming.

I will occasionally use the 18-125 if in good light and the 135-400 for specific use. The 18-55 & 50-200 do not get a lot of use and even though I am tempted to take them on a forthcoming trip, I know I will reach for the two primes whenever I want to get serious, particularly as I love my landscapes and sunrise/set. We will also be spending time in the Californian Redwoods so I think the 24mm f1.8 may well come into its own, given the expected light.
Dont be too quick to discount the primes from your thinking.

Good Luck.
Grant

[simonkit]

I've just replaced my 18-55 kit lens with the Sigma 17-70 & have to say I'm very impressed - great lens, excellent contrast & sharpness, useful focal range too

simon

[blwnhr]

Just to drag this topic up again, I was talking to my salesman friend at my local camera store and his thoughts were the Sigma 10-20 that I'm already getting, and get the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 EX DG. He has this lens for his Nikon and said he is extremely happy with this lens.

Thoughts?

I want F2.8 all the way through, and would like more reach than 50mm. (I'm also keen to stick to Sigma or Pentax as I can get wholesale price on these).

[Kguru]

Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 What focal length does it change from F2.8 to a smaller aperture?

Here's the spread found on my 17-70
17-22: f/2.8
23-35: f/3.5
36-66: f/4.0
67-70: f/4.5

Note only the last few mm is f/4.5 I can afford to not use. So to me it's f/2.8-4.0 which is not bad at all for a 4x zoom.

[egordon99]

Tamron 28-75mm. It pairs up nicely with my 10-20mm. Don't miss the gap between 20 and 28mm (hey, good excuse to buy a fast 24mm prime lens!)

[Mallee Boy]

Hi Adam,
Its a perplexing problem isn't it? One I go over a number of times, as I also have the 18-125.

This my kit, in order of purchase: started with *ist DS & 18-125, then came the Sig 135-400, followed by the Sig EX DG 24 f1.8 (low light), throw in a *ist DL & Pentax 18-55 , add a Schneider 50-200 & now add a Pentax DFA 100mm f2.8.

The kit now looks like this: DS & DFA 100 and DL & Sig 24, these lens stay on the cameras....and a pair of good walking boots for zooming.

I will occasionally use the 18-125 if in good light and the 135-400 for specific use. The 18-55 & 50-200 do not get a lot of use and even though I am tempted to take them on a forthcoming trip, I know I will reach for the two primes whenever I want to get serious, particularly as I love my landscapes and sunrise/set. We will also be spending time in the Californian Redwoods so I think the 24mm f1.8 may well come into its own, given the expected light.
Dont be too quick to discount the primes from your thinking.

Good Luck.
Grant

Thought I had better explain myself Adam. (lotta people I know reckon thats not possible!)
I have since purchased a Tamron 70-300 to compliment both the Sig 18-125 & Pentax 18-55, particularly given that the 50-200 has gone AWOL.

Still like the primes, and will always carry one in any situation, but there is a lot to be said for the zooms when travelling when weight and 'portability' become issues.

Yep! It sure IS perplexing, apologies for the contradictions.

[blwnhr]

Thanks for taking the time to replay guys.

For the type of shooting I'm doing at the moment zooms really appeal. However, I do like the idea of a nice fast prime.

My shopping list looks like this:

Sigma 10-20 - before Christmas
Sigma 28-70 - before Easter
Sigma 24 1.8 - mid year

Coupled with the Bigma I've got some serious range. However if the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 returns I will have one of those in an instant.