Lens Advice: Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM - Canon Mount

[bdtracey]

Hi there - I'm looking at getting a new lens this fall and this one seems to fit the bill for me. Right now I'm have my 18-55 kit lens and a 50 f/1.8. Typically, I like shooting wider and tend to take lots of portraits.

Something a little longer would be nice but that means I'd have to give up the wide end if I wanted to keep the f/2.8 through the entire zoom range. Plus, take the f/2.8 plus the optical stabilization and it looks to be a decent low light lens. I can get it for $850 here in Canada so that's kind of my price range.

Thoughts?

 

[VVFF]

Hi there - I'm looking at getting a new lens this fall and this one seems to fit the bill for me. Right now I'm have my 18-55 kit lens and a 50 f/1.8. Typically, I like shooting wider and tend to take lots of portraits.

Something a little longer would be nice but that means I'd have to give up the wide end if I wanted to keep the f/2.8 through the entire zoom range. Plus, take the f/2.8 plus the optical stabilization and it looks to be a decent low light lens. I can get it for $850 here in Canada so that's kind of my price range.

Thoughts?

It is a good range as I have the 17-55mm by Canon. I will say that although the IS does make for good low light keep in mind IS is only "low light" for non-moving subjects. In other words, a lot of times indoor shots of people doesn't really benefit from IS and it becomes a F2.8 lens. Many times in low light indoors I'll be shooting at ISO1600-ISO3200 to keep shutter speeds up enough.

What's the reason you want to replace the 18-55mm? It really isn't significantly wider, the 55mm is a bit longer. Really all you are losing is the F2.8. I would suggest possibly complementing your current lenses with a "low light" lens like the Sigma 30mm for significantly less money and adding a flash.

 

[bdtracey]

I was thinking about the Sigma 30mm as well because I find my 50mm a bit too long. I was thinking about getting the Sigma 17-50 because it is a higher quality lens that would produce better pictures. I often find my 18-55 kit lens to be a bit on the dull side.

In terms of a flash, I don't really know if I would fully benefit from it at this point because I've been really trying to use natural light as much as possible. I've heard of people "bouncing" their flash and what not but this would be a whole new learning curve for me.

 

[VVFF]

I was thinking about the Sigma 30mm as well because I find my 50mm a bit too long. I was thinking about getting the Sigma 17-50 because it is a higher quality lens that would produce better pictures. I often find my 18-55 kit lens to be a bit on the dull side.

In terms of a flash, I don't really know if I would fully benefit from it at this point because I've been really trying to use natural light as much as possible. I've heard of people "bouncing" their flash and what not but this would be a whole new learning curve for me.

I give you that if by dull you mean too much DOF that the 18-55mm will help you there. However, other aspects of the lens which are more important are your own composition and processing. What is dull about the images it produces in your opinion? It's actually a pretty darn sharp lens so I'm not sure I would buy a new lens based on better sharpness alone.

I personally find that I shoot things that match the limits of the lens. Give me a 30mm lens and I will shoot things that lend themselves well to that focal length. Give me a 50mm and I'll find things that work for that. I find it actually interesting to restrict the focal lengths you can use as it then challenges you to look for interesting ways to use the one you have.

Only you can decide which you want more, and I would judge them on this:

1. Do you want a lens that renders your 18-55mm obsolete but has better DOF and a better low light ability?

2. Would you want to use your 18-55mm most of the time and bring out the 30mm for times when either the light or the DOF warrants it. It will be even better for DOF and low light ability but less convenient if you like to switch focal lengths a lot on the fly.

Only you can decide whats best there.

In regards to flash. I can relate because I too bought my 17-55mm thinking I would never have to use flash again. Then you find out that eyes lack catchlights, subjects are underexposed against bright backgrounds, scenes are STILL too dark for F2.8 and IS and you resort to the pop up flash.

Granted, the pop up flash works for me when I want a quick fill flash or to add some catchlights in people's eyes. But just because DSLRs are better in low light unfortunately does not render the old school flash obsolete.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[*Jen*]

I'm debating between this lens and the similar Tamron...

No help from me, I can't decide!

 

[bdtracey]

Thanks VVFF! Those are some really good points to ponder. With respect to the 18-55 I agree that it is a very sharp lens, much sharper actually than my 50mm f/1.8 but the colours just don't seem to "pop" as much as my 50mm. Do you think that would have to do with the greater DOF?

The convenience factor does play a pretty significant role as I always seem to have a rugrat or two hanging off of me.

The nice thing about the Sigma 30mm is that it's already a crop lens so it will still "feel" like 30mm on my XSi where as my Canon 50mm feels longer than even my 18-55 when it's maxed out. I'm thinking that if I had the 30mm I'd be able to keep it on the camera for more pictures than my 50mm. Now you've really got me thinking...

Second question - if I'm looking at a flash for a Canon lens what would you suggest?

Thanks for all the advice!

 

[Shutterbug]

I'm debating between this lens and the similar Tamron...

No help from me, I can't decide!

When I was looking for a wide angle, I was deciding between the Sigma(17-70) and a comparable Tamron(17-50). At the store I was at, all copies of the Sigma model I wanted back focused badly. The Tamron I ended up getting was tack dead on.
For the price I paid for it, I am happy.
The biggest con the Tamron has is that the zoom rotation is opposite of Canon.

 

[mom2rtk]

If you are looking at a non image stabilized version, the Tamron has gotten outstanding reviews by most of the posters here. Most like it better than the Sigma. There were a few threads recently on that very thing. It gets more complicated when wanting the IS version, as many think the Tamron lost some of that sharpness when they added the IS.

 

[VVFF]

Thanks VVFF! Those are some really good points to ponder. With respect to the 18-55 I agree that it is a very sharp lens, much sharper actually than my 50mm f/1.8 but the colours just don't seem to "pop" as much as my 50mm. Do you think that would have to do with the greater DOF?

The convenience factor does play a pretty significant role as I always seem to have a rugrat or two hanging off of me.

The nice thing about the Sigma 30mm is that it's already a crop lens so it will still "feel" like 30mm on my XSi where as my Canon 50mm feels longer than even my 18-55 when it's maxed out. I'm thinking that if I had the 30mm I'd be able to keep it on the camera for more pictures than my 50mm. Now you've really got me thinking...

Second question - if I'm looking at a flash for a Canon lens what would you suggest?

Thanks for all the advice!

Not sure I understand you correctly but a 50mm "crop" lens (meaning EF-S) is the same as a 50mm "full frame" lens (meaning EF). It may FEEL longer for some reason because you can't zoom out but they are exactly the same. Basically owning a crop camera means not having to worry about EF vs. EF-S....they are treated the same.

30mm = about a 50mm lens on a full frame camera (same FOV)
50mm EF lens on crop = 50mm EF-S lens on crop

Just makin sure you understand that.

You are correct that the 30mm should be much more usable for all situations than your 50mm. 50mm is entering portrait territory, 30mm is more all-around for most people.

In terms of colors, I'm not sure. It could be just what you are perceiving due to the lower DOF. It could be that you use the pop up flash less and get "warmer" colors when using the 50mm, it could just be that you take less "fun" pictures with the standard zoom lens. Either way, I'm not a big believer in majorly different colors from lens to lens. Most of that is in post processing or your on camera settings.

In regards to a flash. Personally I would get a 430ex minimum. However, the 270ex is much smaller and more pocketable. Problem is that it doesn't swivel left or right so it can be tougher to use in some situations. I don't want to overwhelm you with new toys so if you really think the lens is what's primarily holding your photography back, then go with that. I just wanted to point out that you should consider a flash a tool and not something that you can get rid of by using low light lenses. Just as an example take a picture of your kids or something sitting still in a low light room without flash. Now take the same picture in Av mode and dial the flash exposure compensation to where the flash doesn't really make the picture a brighter exposure, but it did go off. You will likely notice your subjects faces are better illuminated and they have "catchlights" in their eyes. This gives life to subjects and makes an OK picture into a awesome one. It's also fun to bounch a full-size flash off some walls and shoot at ISO100 indoors. Great fun

 

[AlbertZeroK]

This lens will not prevent you from using a flash, however, the range is wonderful. I have the Canon EFS 17-55mm and the Image Stabilization is AMAZING on this lens! And the lens, while not completely "L" grade on the outside, uses "L" grade (the best) glass inside! A clear winner and my goto lens!

Sigma will have a bit lesser image quality than the EFS lens I have, but it will still be amazing. The question you have to ask yourself is will you benefit from the aperature difference? I would say at that focal length? Perhaps not. But you will also get an image quality and build quality bump from moving to the Sigma or canon lens. So it's not an unreasonable investment!

But me, I would get the Canon lens, I think the IS is just a bit better than the Sigma.

 

[bob100]

When I was looking for a wide angle, I was deciding between the Sigma(17-70) and a comparable Tamron(17-50). At the store I was at, all copies of the Sigma model I wanted back focused badly. The Tamron I ended up getting was tack dead on.
For the price I paid for it, I am happy.
The biggest con the Tamron has is that the zoom rotation is opposite of Canon.

I also went with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 - very sharp lens but the new Sigma looks good if you need IS/VC. I found at that focal range "IS" was not very useful even at low shutter speeds

 

[mom2rtk]

This lens will not prevent you from using a flash, however, the range is wonderful. I have the Canon EFS 17-55mm and the Image Stabilization is AMAZING on this lens! And the lens, while not completely "L" grade on the outside, uses "L" grade (the best) glass inside! A clear winner and my goto lens!

Sigma will have a bit lesser image quality than the EFS lens I have, but it will still be amazing. The question you have to ask yourself is will you benefit from the aperature difference? I would say at that focal length? Perhaps not. But you will also get an image quality and build quality bump from moving to the Sigma or canon lens. So it's not an unreasonable investment!

But me, I would get the Canon lens, I think the IS is just a bit better than the Sigma.

At about $400 more, it SHOULD be better.

Only the OP knows her budget and whether it would be worth it to do that. I ended up doing that myself, mostly because I have very unsteady hands and knew I would be unhappy without the IS. And once IS was added into the equation, the Tamron wasn't as good.

 

[Shutterbug]

IS is a nice extra tool to have if you can afford it. Though like many others have said IS will only help you with stationary subjects and with Canon's system if you are using a tripod they tell you to turn off the IS.

If you take a fast lens like a 2.8 and combine it with one of todays cameras with the "less noisy" higher ISO's you should be able to get a good shot.
Seeing as much photography is outdoors or with moving objects I would rather put the money extra money of IS toward something else.

Again this is just IMO