[nathanjberry]

I am going to upgrade from the kit lens and have run into a quandary as to which of these lenses I want.

Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO

I like to shoot outdoor landscapes and close-ups of nature so the wide angle & macro features of both appeal. But also want a lens for some indoor/museum/evening shots.

The prices are similar to each other so that does not seem to be a factor

The 50mm to 70mm zoom difference does pose questions as to how much is the extra 20mm useful. Also how well do they compare for indoor/low light shooting past the widest end?

I guess it boils down to the extra reach of the 17-70mm vs. the constant 2.8 of the 18-50mm. Are there other differences I need to consider for these two lenses?

Thanks

---

Last edited by nathanjberry; 12-14-2007 at 01:59 PM.

[toobacat]

The 18-50mm has a 4 year warranty in the US, and the 17-70mm has a 1 year warranty.

[daacon]

Weather sealed (16-50)

[nathanjberry]

Weather sealed (16-50)

I would like that.... but it costs at least $750 (quick google product search). A bit out of my price range. I want to stay under $500.

[toobacat]

Berger Bros has the cheapest price I've found.

16-50mm for $699

[jmdeegan]

i just grabbed the 16-45, it came highly recommended. its a constant f4. Otherwise, i was thinking of the 16-50...its pricey, but also highly recommended....the 16-45 was just around 400, and can be had under that from some of the bigger stores.
otherwise, i'd probably go for the sigma. main detractor for me was none of the shops I use or would use, had it in stock. Some flat didn't even list it on their sites at all, and thus I chose something else.

I think going forward, I'd like the idea of a constant f#, but that's my rookie opinion.

[daacon]

I would like that.... but it costs at least $750 (quick google product search). A bit out of my price range. I want to stay under $500.

My bad I completly misread your choices - perhaps it was a Freudian slip on my part to go buy one - I do not own either lens (what I have is in my sig) but have read good things about both of them. If I had nothing in that range , I think I would go for the 18-50 - the constant f2.8 for me anyway would make up for the reach but I like to shoot in the lower end and indoors at times I guess if you can determine what range you shoot more often in might help out.

Good Luck

[creampuff]

If you don't need the constant f/2.8 aperture, the variable aperture Sigma 17-70mm has the more versatile focal range. That said, the DA 16-45mm f/4 makes a fine lens. The 1mm focal length difference on the wide end is quite obvious.

[truonganh]

i have looked at both of these lens as well. I decided to go for the 17-70. If you google up the comparison, some important thing can be discovered: the 18-50 has a true low end of 19mm, while the 17-70 sits at 17mm. 2mm at wide angle difference is huge. Another thing you will find is that the 17-70 has a closer macro capability, a big plus in my book. They are both tack sharp and so the choice bears down to range vs. speed. In the end i decided to go for the 17-70 for better range and then compliment it with a prime 50mm lens with huge speed (f1.4). Haven't regret it since.

Now, i think the EX line from sigma are VERY GOOD and will take serious abuse. I don't think it's just a fancy badging of the same lens. Construction materials, quality requirements, focus belt & gears all add up to longevity of use So if you will shoot a lot and not baby your lens, definitely go for the 18-50. I don't think the 17-70 is 'pro' grade. the 18-50 is not quite as weatherproof as the DA* series but probably presents an outstanding value (you can get 2 lens for the price of 1 DA*). But then, i covet the DA*...so....

Good luck. Can't go wrong with the choices.

[germar]

I've got the Sigma 17-70, replacing my kit 18-55. I can say without a doubt that this was the best lens dollar I've ever spent. The images are just so eye pleasing, with nice contrast and excellent color. It's heavier than the kit, but not much. The biggest issue I've had with it is the 72mm filter size... nothing I've already got will fit.

While I am sure the 18-50 2.8 is a nice lens, I must tell you that the Sigma has left me pleased and satisfied. The only reason it leaves my camera now is to make way for my old prime lenses.

hope that helps!

germar

[nathanjberry]

Thank you for all the replies. One last question: How does the 17-70 perform in low light?

I like to shoot later in the evening and very early. I know it has 2.8 at the 17 end, but what is it like handheld at the other focal lengths?

Thanks

[truonganh]

Thank you for all the replies. One last question: How does the 17-70 perform in low light?

I like to shoot later in the evening and very early. I know it has 2.8 at the 17 end, but what is it like handheld at the other focal lengths?

Thanks

well... with the SR on K10D, it works rather well. You loose 1 -1.5 f stop at the most, which easily compensated. I have used 1/45 at 70mm hand-held, no problem. I have shot 1/10s hand held at 17mm end and got some acceptable results. But this question really depends on how much coffee you have and whether you have something to brace onto.

Cheers

[simonkit]

I use the 17-70 almost exclusively & find it produces very appealing images - excellent contrast / colour rendition & sharpness

Simon

[Lowell Goudge]

well... with the SR on K10D, it works rather well. You loose 1 -1.5 f stop at the most, which easily compensated. I have used 1/45 at 70mm hand-held, no problem. I have shot 1/10s hand held at 17mm end and got some acceptable results. But this question really depends on how much coffee you have and whether you have something to brace onto.

Cheers

shake reduction is OK as long as the subject does not move. you need to be careful suggesting that a fast lens is not necessary. If low light also includes moving subjects go for the speed, BUT, consider before you get either, what your other lenses are, or will be.

For example I have the sigma 10-20, and a fast 70-200 (f2.8) for me, I am thinking the 24-60 or 24-70 sigma f2.8 because 1, it is fast, and 2, the potential gap in the range 20-24 is not too bad, and can be worked around. I see no need for an overlap at the low end of what woudl be a walk around zoom

[Bramela]

I have owned the 17-70 for quite some time and I find it a great lens. Keep it on the camera as a walkaround lens and you will find it is very versatile. Sharp, great contrast, Macro. Good value for its price IMHO!
Sample, a quickshot taken of my front balcony, shows the quality, I reckon. Not much preparation done for the shot.