Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2016 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.

  
 
MGH-PA
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


So, I've been shooting my Sigma 17-50/2.8 for about two years now. A little on my old Canon 30D, and now on my 70D. I'm just not happy with how soft it is wide open and I'm shooting a lot of indoor portraits of my new child so I'm doing much of my shooting at F2.8/F4. I can usually stop down and bounce flash which is ok, but the lens still isn't as sharp as I would like nor am I getting as shallow as I want.

I'm not in the market to upgrade my body yet, but I want a GREAT lens for the replacement. I know there are a ton, but I use this lens as my primary indoor lens (where I'm doing much of my shooting) and for some video work (using MF).

Suggestions?



Feb 03, 2016 at 02:41 PM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


there are a couple of great Crop standard zooms .
I know Ive said this many times (wen the subject of crop standard zooms comes up) but having to sell my 17-55 IS when I made the move to FF was the one downside . it was such a great lens . I would say its the best 'around' option if you want something 2.8 .
there is also the Sigma 17-35 1.8 . you loose IS/OS and a bit of range (plus its not exactly small) but it does look a fantastic lens .
I know a few swear by the Tamron 17-50 as well . the non VC version is better but I wouldntnt be able to get past the inferior AF having had a 28-75 that couldn't AF its way out of a paper bag indoors

more range but slower is the 15-85 IS or or even the 18-135 STM

the 17-55 would be my choice



Feb 03, 2016 at 02:57 PM
MGH-PA
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


Thanks. I know third party glass can be almost as good if not as good (or even better sometimes), but my Canon 70-200F4 is tack sharp all day long and focuses instantly. The Sigma is decent, but much softer through the entire range and tends to focus hunt a bit more than I would like. I could see the value in the 17-55.


Feb 03, 2016 at 03:04 PM
Dudewithoutape
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


Have you micro adjust the sigma? I've never used it personally but have heard it's quite good.

If you want shallow dof, you should get a prime lens instead. Since you say indoors, using would go with the sigma 30 1.4 or the Canon 28 1.8 or the new 50 stm (but that is a bit long indoors)

The Canon 70-200 4 is legendary bargain lens. The reason it focuses so fast is due to the excellent usm motor.

If you're going to do video work,I suggest an old manual lens, just because modern lenses don't manual focus as well. However, since you do have a 70d, I'd look into the newer stm lenses. They're all excellent AF video lenses



Feb 03, 2016 at 03:40 PM
mmurph
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


You may have a bad copy of the Sigma, or one that needs to be adjusted? As asked directly above, have you used Micro Adjust?

According to DxO, that lens is the sharpest standard zoom on the D7100 at 14 MP. The only zooms with a higher rating were the Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS at 17 MP, and the excellent Nikon 70-200 2.8 II at 15 MP- just barely higher than the 17-50.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-24M-Pix-Nikon-D7100-Best-standard-and-portrait-primes-and-zooms/Best-Standard-zoom-models-for-the-D7100

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-24M-Pix-Nikon-D7100-Part-I/Best-Zoom-models-for-the-D7100

I have one that I have used extensively on my Nikon D5300, it is a great lens. Definitely better all around than the older, non-VR version of the Nikon 24-70 2.8, at less than 1/4 the price new.

My lens vignettes a bit wide open, but I have happily shot it wide open at events for almost 2 years. I used the Nikon D5300 with the 17-50 2.8 OS as the "short" zoom, with the fantastic Canon 70-200 2.8 II on my Canon 7DII on the long end. I was completely satisfied with the 17-50, even looking at images side-by-side with the 70-200.

Good luck!



Feb 03, 2016 at 04:19 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


Is your 17-50/2.8 the OS version or non-OS version?

The original, non-OS version was known to be softer than the current OS version (people went with Tamron for a fast sharp crop standard zoom).



Feb 03, 2016 at 04:23 PM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


johnctharp wrote:
Is your 17-50/2.8 the OS version or non-OS version?

The original, non-OS version was known to be softer than the current OS version (people went with Tamron for a fast sharp crop standard zoom).


The non-OS is the 2.8/18-50 (EX), the new one with OS is a 2.8/17-50.

I used the 2.8/18-50EX for several years on 300D and 450D and indeed it is soft wide open especially in the borders/corners, mostly due to field curvature for infinity scenes. And AF wasn't very reliable on some Canon bodies. You need to stop down the non-OS version 2-3 stops for really sharp corners at infinity; the Sigma 17-70 lenses from that period had similar issues. But once stopped down it was an excellent lens, better contrast and color than the Canon 18-55IS kit zoom and much better mechanical quality.

The new 17-50 OS version is known to be a bit soft wide open, but most reviews say it is already excellent even in the corners at f/4. The Canon 2.8/17-55 is probably better full open, but that's the only advantage it has. The Sigma has better build and is a bit smaller/lighter as well.

I considered the 2.8/17-50OS but after reading the tests decided to keep my 15-85IS; stopped down they are probably pretty close in performance, but the extra few mm on the wide side are a major advantage for me. All these APS-C lenses are compromises ... Sigma 18-35 is optically excellent, but it has small range, lacks IS and is relatively big/heavy and expensive (although cheap for its spec ...).



Feb 03, 2016 at 04:34 PM
HS-LD
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


You could just augment it instead of replacing it...

The EF 50mm 1.4 comes to mind as a great fast portrait lens on a 70D. It would definitely be sharp.

And add the EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM and have the historical 1-2 punch of the traditional 35mm and 85mm lenses covered in crop format. Not too much you couldn't do with those 2 lenses.

WARNING: Primes can be addictive though.... You've been warned.



Feb 03, 2016 at 04:49 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


technic wrote:
The non-OS is the 2.8/18-50 (EX), the new one with OS is a 2.8/17-50.


You're right! Link to tests of all three at DxO

technic wrote:
The new 17-50 OS version is known to be a bit soft wide open, but most reviews say it is already excellent even in the corners at f/4. The Canon 2.8/17-55 is probably better full open, but that's the only advantage it has. The Sigma has better build and is a bit smaller/lighter as well.


It's not really any better or worse than the Canon lens, just different in different areas- both lenses could stand an update, but the Canon lens is a very hard sell considering the Sigma's performance.

To the OP: check you lens on a tripod in live view; if you're nailing focus and it still isn't reasonably sharp, your lens likely needs a trip to Sigma for adjustment. If it is sharp, then check your focus adjustment.



Feb 03, 2016 at 04:50 PM
Kisutch
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


The Canon 17-55 is just plain an awesome lens, my favorite lens I've owned. I know you said you want to stick with your camera, but I wonder if you might have more bang for your bucks if you moved to a used 6D/5DII instead of looking for a sharper crop zoom option; not a cheap transition but since you're wanting both shallow DOF and low light performance, you'd get a bigger bump by going FF than by switching lenses


Feb 03, 2016 at 05:06 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


Kisutch wrote:
The Canon 17-55 is just plain an awesome lens, my favorite lens I've owned. I know you said you want to stick with your camera, but I wonder if you might have more bang for your bucks if you moved to a used 6D/5DII instead of looking for a sharper crop zoom option; not a cheap transition but since you're wanting both shallow DOF and low light performance, you'd get a bigger bump by going FF than by switching lenses


While this is true, the only Canon full-frame that can compete with the 70D's featureset is the 5D III. I gave up my 60D for a 6D, entirely for low-light AF and high-ISO noise performance, but the 70D is better in both regards than the 60D, and better in every regard except sensor performance and absolute low-light AF capability than the 6D.

I can live with the limitations of my 6D, but I'm also very interested in grabbing a 7D II at some point for action stuff (or 6D II/5D IV, if those will suffice when they arrive).



Feb 03, 2016 at 05:20 PM
Kisutch
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


Oops, I just saw the 30D. That said, I would think if shallow DOF and low light performance are important, he'd still see huge benefits from a 6D, the center point AF is pretty darn good in low light. I haven't used the 70D (do own 7D, 6D and 5D3), but assuming new FF body has 1-2 stops better ISO and 1 stop better DOF than new crop body, aren't we talking about >2-x performance in these categories, would think that trumps featureset, but I'm not a gear expert.


Feb 03, 2016 at 06:03 PM
mdude85
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


The new Sigma 18-50 f1.8 Art is getting some good reviews. It's got virtually the same focal length you use now and is a stop faster.


Feb 03, 2016 at 06:22 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


mdude85 wrote:
The new Sigma 18-50 f1.8 Art is getting some good reviews. It's got virtually the same focal length you use now and is a stop faster.


It's 18-35/1.8

(but otherwise stellar, assuming no focus issues)



Feb 03, 2016 at 06:23 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC would be worth checking out


Feb 03, 2016 at 06:46 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


Pixel Perfect wrote:
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC would be worth checking out


Looking at DxO, it appears to have slightly better central sharpness, and the corners are pretty rough wide-open (if that matters), but the corners also don't crisp up when stopped down, so I guess it's a matter of what you'd use it for.



Feb 03, 2016 at 07:00 PM
Mar73
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


I have owned the Sigma 17-50 for a few months now and love it. I'm wondering if you have a bad copy or need to adjust. Although the Sigma is known to be soft wide open at 50mm and tack sharp throughout the rest of its range. The Tamron is said to be just the reverse. From my research before i bought the Sigma, the Canon 17-55 is simply the best. It is supposed to be tack sharp wide open all the time. I did not see the need for me to spend the extra $400 to get the Canon. I also have the Canon 24mm STM & 50mm STM lenses that I am also very happy with. I shoot a 50d and am wanting to upgrade to the 70d for video and use the STM lenses. The Sigma 35mm Art is very high on my wish list and you may want to check it out.

Good luck,
Marty



Feb 03, 2016 at 07:24 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


johnctharp wrote:
Looking at DxO, it appears to have slightly better central sharpness, and the corners are pretty rough wide-open (if that matters), but the corners also don't crisp up when stopped down, so I guess it's a matter of what you'd use it for.


It's known for large variations in IQ, and non VC version is apparently more consistent



Feb 03, 2016 at 07:29 PM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


johnctharp wrote:
You're right! Link to tests of all three at DxO

It's not really any better or worse than the Canon lens, just different in different areas- both lenses could stand an update, but the Canon lens is a very hard sell considering the Sigma's performance.

To the OP: check you lens on a tripod in live view; if you're nailing focus and it still isn't reasonably sharp, your lens likely needs a trip to Sigma for adjustment. If it is sharp, then check your focus adjustment.


Based on the DXO tests the Canon seems overpriced indeed, although it is difficult to put a price on reliable AF and more peace of mind about future camera upgrades ;-)

But I don't really trust the DXO results, they are very different from my experience with the 2.8/18-50 (I used two copies which were very similar and compared with quite a few other Canon and Sigma lenses, I didn't test the new Sigma 2.8/17-50 but looked at online images from e.g. lenstip.com). I tried to get an idea about corner performance of the three lenses at WA from DXO charts: the two Sigma's look pretty good even wide open while the Canon is clearly worse according to DXO. But reality is VERY different, at least for infinity scenes at larger apertures the 18-50 is much worse IMHO and at f/2.8 I think the Canon 17-55IS is the sharpest; might be related to DXO testing only at relatively short distances.



Feb 04, 2016 at 06:05 AM
MGH-PA
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · I've outgrown my Sigma 17-50. Suggestions for replacement.


Thanks, everyone. I thought about returning it to Sigma to have it fixed if it was indeed a bad copy, but I have not attempted to MFA.

I should add I do have the 50mm/1.8, 70-200mm/F4, and the stock 18-55mm STM as well as the 55-250mm STM. The latter two I use very little even with video as I find I'm manual focusing most of the time based on what I shoot.

I'm wanting to narrow down my lower focal length choices a bit so I don't have so much overlap or choice (which is probably why the Sigma spends so much time on my camera...I don't have to switch out so much).



Feb 04, 2016 at 07:13 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.