New Lens Help - Sigma 18-35 f1.8 or 17-50 f2.8?

J

Jonesy83

Suspended / Banned
Messages
93
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey Everyone,

I've just started to get into photography and would appreciate a bit of help from you pro's :)

I'm thinking about getting a new lens because I'd like to get into gig/event photography and am looking for a good low light lens, what do you think and do you have any preference on the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 or the 17-50 f2.8.

We're talking local venues, it's only going to be mates bands and all unsigned stuff so I'll be able to get right up the front and shouldn't need too big a zoom.

At the minute I have a Canon 500d (with the standard 18-55mm kit lens), 50mm f1.8 STM and the 70-200mm f4 USM L, so I'm leaning towards the 18-35mm and bringing the 50mm with me if I need any tighter shots.

My main worries are the 18-35mm focusing issues, I've read a bit about them not being so great with the older Canon's, but then maybe getting the dock will help sort this out. Has anyone used it with a 500d?

Also, if I were to get the 17-50mm then I'd have a lens that's good enough for low light situations and be able to chuck my crappy kit lens and use it as my new walkabout lens..........or would I? Am I better getting the 18-35mm because of its ability to let in more light?

I'm looking at picking them up 2nd hand so if there's anything else in the same kind of price brackets that you'd suggest then I'm all ears!

Thanks!!
 
Well I'm not a pro but that's never stopped me giving an opinion :)

Your question is a tricky one for me, Steve. I can't say I do much of that type of photography (gigs etc.) but I'd be worried about the relatively narrow zoom range on the f/1.8 lens, even on a crop body. Even if you're up close and personal in the front row, you would probably want closer "action" shots of the band members and 35mm might just not get you close enough, so you'll be cropping in - leading to lower res and more noticeable noise. So, net net, you may be better off with a slower lens with a wider zoom range. But the f/1.8 lens gets a fantastic write-up and is supposed to be a top notch lens.

You're also right that the 17-50 is an excellent walkabout lens on a crop body - I know, because I use mine (albeit a Tamron) a lot. It's also f/2.8 and I can't say I've often wished for it to be faster, although I would like it to be a touch sharper wide open.

I'd suggest taking the 50mm f/1.8 that you have and trying that out on its own at your next gig. See whether that's a focal length that works for you and how often you really need to open it up to full aperture. And remember that higher ISO shots with noise are better than lower ISO shots with camera shake :)
 
Years ago... too many years ago :D I shot lots of gigs in low light with my 35mm Nikon and a crappy 28-70mm lens and ISO 1600 film and no one, not once, ever complained about image quality. Of course in those days prints were relatively small and that hid noise and motion blur too to some extent but I'm reasonably confident that just about any modern camera of maybe 1" sensor and larger (and maybe some smaller ones too) will do a better job than 35mm ISO 1600 film and a f3.5-5.6 lens did back then so I'd say that either zoom lens could possibly be ok.

Like the op I could roam and didn't need a long lens but it'll all depend on proximity to the action and the framing you want. I could get close to the stage and if there was one it wasn't usually high so I was lucky but if not so lucky the extra reach of 50mm could be useful and I think I'd therefore go for the 17-50mm f2.8 and take the 50mm in case it was needed for the f1.8... assuming that flash isn't an option. I wouldn't want to be changing lenses too often though at the places I used to shoot at and I don't think I'd be happy with just a 50mm on an APS-C camera as I'd find it too long for some shots and if you back up to try and get the framing you're possibly going to have people between you and the subject pretty quickly.
 
Hey Guys,

Thanks for the help and quick replies!

I think telling me to have a go with the 50mm and see how I get on is probably going to be the best advice I'm going to get and it makes perfect sense! My first thought was the the 50mm might be a bit too tight and I'd need something wider, but I'll take my camera down to my next band practice and see what sort of distances I'll need for the right sort of framing I'm after etc.

The venues sound pretty similar to yours, Woof. All pretty small, getting a metre or so away from the band won't be an issue and if there is a stage it's probably only a few inches off the ground. The shots would only be for me to have or bands to use on their website/social media etc so I guess they're not going to be a size where any noise is that noticeable.

So I guess the 17-50mm is the front runner at the mo......which is handy as it's cheaper and makes for a better walkabout lens. Happy Days!
 
The best thing about giving the 50mm a go is (i) you'll find out whether that f/l is remotely useable or desirable; and (ii) whether you really do need f/1.8 or not...

And since you own it, trying it out is free :)
 
Jonesy83 said:
Hey Everyone,

I've just started to get into photography and would appreciate a bit of help from you pro's :)

I'm thinking about getting a new lens because I'd like to get into gig/event photography and am looking for a good low light lens, what do you think and do you have any preference on the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 or the 17-50 f2.8.

We're talking local venues, it's only going to be mates bands and all unsigned stuff so I'll be able to get right up the front and shouldn't need too big a zoom.

At the minute I have a Canon 500d (with the standard 18-55mm kit lens), 50mm f1.8 STM and the 70-200mm f4 USM L, so I'm leaning towards the 18-35mm and bringing the 50mm with me if I need any tighter shots.

My main worries are the 18-35mm focusing issues, I've read a bit about them not being so great with the older Canon's, but then maybe getting the dock will help sort this out. Has anyone used it with a 500d?

Also, if I were to get the 17-50mm then I'd have a lens that's good enough for low light situations and be able to chuck my crappy kit lens and use it as my new walkabout lens..........or would I? Am I better getting the 18-35mm because of its ability to let in more light?

I'm looking at picking them up 2nd hand so if there's anything else in the same kind of price brackets that you'd suggest then I'm all ears!

Thanks!!
Click to expand...
Have the 18-35 and no focusing issues or know of anyone that has had, it's a fantastic lens the IQ is top as is its low light performance, they are going cheaper now so are much better value
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top