Advice needed

djnick1985

djnick1985

Suspended / Banned
Messages
139
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys im after a bit of info, im looking at buying a sigma 17-70 as a walk around lens, its the wide aperture of 2.8 and the large zoom that interests me, and heres the but... Do i need os on this lens or will i get away with not having it. Does it really improve pictures in low light that much or can you get away with bumping up the iso to get a faster shutter speed. Im only asking as iv seen one fore sale but it has no os, or should i hold out and save a bit more cash and buy one that has os?

Any advice would be great

Cheers
 
Remember it is only 2.8 at the wide end and drops off pretty quick as you zoom!

I had the non-os purely as the os version wasn't available if I was buying today I'd get the os it's such a great feature on your everyday lens and increases your options and versatility!
 
a1ex2001 said:
Remember it is only 2.8 at the wide end and drops off pretty quick as you zoom!
Click to expand...

Yup. I tried one but didn't buy. I found that it stopped down as soon as I moved the zoom ring just a fraction.

I suppose the choice is...

Get a 17-50mm f2.8 and live without the reach past 50mm.

Get a 24/28-70mm f2.8 and live without the wide end below 24mm and live with the additional bulk and weight.

Get something like the 17-70mm and live without the f2.8.
 
Forgot to say im using a canon 500d cropped sensor. What would be a good walk around lens then, im so confused.
 
I'm in the same boat, looking to upgrade my kit lens on my d3100. When I started I I was goin straight for the sigma 24-70 for the extra reach and low light handling as I've got the sigma 10-20 for the wide stuff anyway. But after reading on here that its more of a ff lens *** of the crop factor on my camera. Even tho I think I can live with the 24mm starting point, it also expensive £550ish. Then looked at the sigma 17-70 2.8-4 as its a good mix of both the thing I was after in am upgrade from the kit lens, but everyone on here seems to think the tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC is the lens to get as it suppose to be sharper but I'd want the VC, witch made me look at the reviews vs the sigma 17-50 2.8 witch seem to think that the sigma is quiter and better over all.

So now I'm confused! Think they all would make good upgrade walk around lens but the beat for what u need depends on what ur going to use it most for?
I'm goin to have to go to a decent camera shop and try all 3 (if I can), even thought about Renting the sigma 24-70 for a test drive.
 
Dubn83 said:
I'm in the same boat, looking to upgrade my kit lens on my d3100. When I started I I was goin straight for the sigma 24-70 for the extra reach and low light handling as I've got the sigma 10-20 for the wide stuff anyway. But after reading on here that its more of a ff lens *** of the crop factor on my camera. Even tho I think I can live with the 24mm starting point, it also expensive £550ish. Then looked at the sigma 17-70 2.8-4 as its a good mix of both the thing I was after in am upgrade from the kit lens, but everyone on here seems to think the tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC is the lens to get as it suppose to be sharper but I'd want the VC, witch made me look at the reviews vs the sigma 17-50 2.8 witch seem to think that the sigma is quiter and better over all.

So now I'm confused! Think they all would make good upgrade walk around lens but the beat for what u need depends on what ur going to use it most for?
I'm goin to have to go to a decent camera shop and try all 3 (if I can), even thought about Renting the sigma 24-70 for a test drive.
Click to expand...

As you say it does depend on what you are using it for. I have just got myself a Nikon 35mm 1.8g for my D3100 and its a great lens for general walkabout photography but obviously no zoom.
 
Yea I kind of want the upgrade for when I'm out with my sons, on trips out and to use at wedding ect and car meets in the evenings. So plenty of reach and low light capable? But witch one of the 3 to go for I'm not sure?!
And I've heard great things bout the 35mm 1.8 but I got a nikon 50mm 1.4 as a gift from the wife a few yrs bk and I can't beat it for portraits an nite work (but limited on reach/space as a walk around). And I've got a a 70-300 for long stuff like goin to the zoo/wildlife plus the 10-20 I said about earlier. It's just the middle I need sorting?
 
Well looking at a few reviews I think I would go for the Sigma 17-50 2.8
 
I have the 17-70 on my 450D with OS. It ticked all the right boxes for me after lots of research and I have no wish to change it. I was torn betwen being stuck at 50mm with the Tamron or getting the extra reach with the 17-70, and I went for the extra reach in the end. It's still a stop faster than the kit lens throughout the range and beyond and I could notice the difference.

I subsequently purchased a nifty fifty to give me the speed at 50mm and I also have a Sigma 30mm f1.4 which I bought this year, so I now have something fast at 17mm, 30mm and 50mm with the 17-70 being my general purpose lens.

I recently shot my sister-in-law's wedding with just the 30mm and 17-70mm. I didn't feel the need for anything else, but if I had just had a 17-50, I probably would have wanted to take something longer with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top