C100: Sigma 17-50 vs 18-35

Doug_EX

Doug_EX

Well-known member
Hi,

I am on the fence between those 2 lenses (and the Canon 17-55). I already have a Tokina 11-16 and a Canon 24-105. I realized friday, while shooting for a client, that I need a lens that will bridge the gap between my 2 lenses and I want a 2.8.
I was shooting between 24mm and 40mm with my 24-105 a person (3 feet away) in a factory, the background had to be blurred out enough so some of the equipment couldn't be distinguishable. My 24-105 could not achieve this. I had to borrow a Canon 24-70 2.8 Mark II. It did a remarquable job. That's when I realized the need for 2.8 wide zoom. Would a Sigma (or Canon) 17-50 2.8 be a good choice? Is it almost as good has the 24-70?
I think the Sigma 18-35 1.8 would be perfect except it's limited range. I'm afraid that I will regret not having the 35 to 50mm range. No IS is not a dealbreaker for me because it will be used almost always on a tripod or monopod.

I shoot mostly corporate stuff.

Thanks!
 
The Sigma 17-50 that I used had unbearable focus breathing and poor mechanics in general. 18-35 is rock solid - something like 3 primes in one.
 
Also check out the sigma 24-70/2.8 - I picked one up for inexpensive recently and it has been a work horse of a lens. Lighter than the Canon version and if there is a loss in quality/sharpness it's not very evident (without holding up to charts and pixel peeping).
 
Love the reach on the 17-55mm because it's got IS and you can shoot a talking head (shoulders up) at 55mm/f2.8 with some nice separation and that lens has a nice near-macro there, too.

But if you already have the 24-105mm, it's hard to say no to the 18-35mm f1.8. That might be the best dSLR zoom optically (other than a bit of distortion at 18mm) I've used and that's including the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS. The 17-55mm gets knocked out by the 15-40mm Angie, especially wide open it's just soft and bleh without the punchy contrast, but other than its hint of distortion the 18-35mm Sigma holds its own with the best cinema zooms. A little bit "boring" but not even that boring. (The CP2s and RPPs are more boring.) Just a great lens. I'd add an 85mm f1.8 or f1.4 from Rokinon or something for your talking heads and then you can get a nice shallow focus look and sharpness in more subdued light and shoot most of your content at f1.8 if you want.

Build quality is questionable, though. Looks like a tank, doesn't behave as one. The Canon L zooms are built much better. I was not that impressed with the build on the Canon 17-55mm, either. Have only used (not abused lol) the 17-50mm Sigma.

Haven't used the 24-70mm Sigma, but it would have to be a lot better than the 24-70mm L (the original, not the new II one) to come close to the 18-35mm f1.8. Then again, from the sound of things, it might be.... The original was a real dog in the corners, curvature of field like crazy.
 
I haven't used the Sigma 18-35, but we do have a Canon 16-35, bought for similar reasons. A quick look at the Sigma suggests it doesn't have any Image Stabilisation. For my kind of work, where mid-wide angle stuff is often handheld, it's the principle reason why the otherwise excellent Canon 16-35 sits in the box, rarely used - it's a lovely lens, but doesn't have IS.

At times I think Canon's seemingly arbitrary inclusion/exclusion of IS on it's L range lurches between being calculatingly cynical or fabulously short-sighted.

Also, have you thought about solving some of your DOF issues (eg the factory shot you mention) with post production filters?

Ben.
 
I haven't used the 17-50 but I use the 18-35 a lot. It is the best lens I've ever used. Period.

I only wished it had a slightly longer range, but nothing in this world is perfect. I use it with the Speed Booster on the GH3 so it basicly is a f1.2 constant aperture zoom. Unbelievable!
The good part is that it's perfectly sharp wide open. At 35mm 1.8 the DOF is about the same as a 50mm f2.8. So basicly, the only thing you are gaining by getting the 17-50 is the slightly longer reach.
 
TSDavis said:
Also check out the sigma 24-70/2.8 - I picked one up for inexpensive recently and it has been a work horse of a lens. Lighter than the Canon version and if there is a loss in quality/sharpness it's not very evident (without holding up to charts and pixel peeping).
Click to expand...
Doesn't bidge the gap between my 2 other lenses....but, will check it out!
 
Policar said:
Love the reach on the 17-55mm because it's got IS and you can shoot a talking head (shoulders up) at 55mm/f2.8 with some nice separation and that lens has a nice near-macro there, too.

But if you already have the 24-105mm, it's hard to say no to the 18-35mm f1.8. That might be the best dSLR zoom optically (other than a bit of distortion at 18mm) I've used and that's including the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS. The 17-55mm gets knocked out by the 15-40mm Angie, especially wide open it's just soft and bleh without the punchy contrast, but other than its hint of distortion the 18-35mm Sigma holds its own with the best cinema zooms. A little bit "boring" but not even that boring. (The CP2s and RPPs are more boring.) Just a great lens. I'd add an 85mm f1.8 or f1.4 from Rokinon or something for your talking heads and then you can get a nice shallow focus look and sharpness in more subdued light and shoot most of your content at f1.8 if you want.

Build quality is questionable, though. Looks like a tank, doesn't behave as one. The Canon L zooms are built much better. I was not that impressed with the build on the Canon 17-55mm, either. Have only used (not abused lol) the 17-50mm Sigma.

Haven't used the 24-70mm Sigma, but it would have to be a lot better than the 24-70mm L (the original, not the new II one) to come close to the 18-35mm f1.8. Then again, from the sound of things, it might be.... The original was a real dog in the corners, curvature of field like crazy.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Just read a review on the Sigma 24-70 2.8. It doesn't do great at 2.8 on the entire focal range like the Canon 24-70 Mk II. Very soft at 35mm (and extremely soft a 70mm). It seem to be good from F4...so no good for me.
 
bengiles said:
I haven't used the Sigma 18-35, but we do have a Canon 16-35, bought for similar reasons. A quick look at the Sigma suggests it doesn't have any Image Stabilisation. For my kind of work, where mid-wide angle stuff is often handheld, it's the principle reason why the otherwise excellent Canon 16-35 sits in the box, rarely used - it's a lovely lens, but doesn't have IS.

At times I think Canon's seemingly arbitrary inclusion/exclusion of IS on it's L range lurches between being calculatingly cynical or fabulously short-sighted.

Also, have you thought about solving some of your DOF issues (eg the factory shot you mention) with post production filters?

Ben.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ben!
I'm afraid that if I buy a 18-35 (which I'm sure would work very well) I will likely buy a stabilize zoom lens aswell. But, if this occur, I would definately buy the 18-135 STM. That is, for run & gun situation.

Yes, I thought of blurring the background in post. But, for me, this is temporary soluton and not viable on the long run.
 
I just ordered the Sigma 18-35. Will let you guys know what I think about it after my first few shoots with it.

Thanks!
 
Wow! Received my lens today...it's totally awesome. Can't fault it really. Great build quality, great zoom et focus ring. The lens is just great!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top