Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 OS HSM Or 18-50 F2.8 EX?  
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Posted (4 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7689 times:

Hi all,

Picking the brains of anyone who owns either of the above.....

I've seen many reviews - the 17-70 in the main gets excellent write-ups, however opinions on the 18-50 EX vary. Some say the latter isn't as good, others say it's absolutely wonderful.

The 17-70 costs more, despite not being an EX, and of course has an HSM and OS. I'm assuming that the EX is cheaper because of a lack of these features? In which case, does the EX deliver superior image quality?

The range on the 17-70 is more useful but I'll take whichever produces the best images. Unfortunately reviews of the 18-50 are so varied that I cannot at the moment make an informed judgement.

Also, anyone with any other recommendations? I have looked at Canon's EF17-85 IS but ruled it out due to quite a few mediocre reviews (a couple of which compared it directly to the 17-70).

Thanks,

Karl

[Edited 2010-06-27 03:31:21]

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLGW340 From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7619 times:

Well, the 18-50 is f/2.8 all the way through and working in a camera shop, I have used both. The sigma 18-50 has a better build quality and the 17-70 tends to get internal dust quite easily. The 18-50 is quieter to focus but your not getting the extra 20mm of zoom. In terms of overall image quality, they are near as damn it the same. Hard one really   
Cheers
Chris



Live life from the window seat...
User currently offlinedendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7603 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

I think it also depends which end of the zoom range you need most.
I have a Canon 17-40L which is superb but not overly wide when a 1.6 factor is taken into account.
I also have the Canon 24-105L IS which is excellent and with a 1.6 factor it makes it a very small lens and a very, very useful one for aviation. I have to say that the IS is not that useful though, barely needed at the wide end and with only the one mode, useless for panning.

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1743 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This isn't one of your two options, but I'd suggest the Tamron 17-50 all the way, Karl.   It's one lens that's been so universally positively reviewed that you can't go wrong with it.

True, it has no IS and it's not USM focus, but the images speak for themselves.

[Edited 2010-06-28 06:29:36]


From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7532 times:

Thanks chaps.

I have just ordered the 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 OS HSM from Amazon - that way if I have any issues I can return it for a swap or refund.

Photozone.de pretty much compare the 17-70, the 18-50 EX and Canon 17-85 IS; with the 17-70 coming out on top overall. It isn't without faults but they are only minor and the hoards of good reviews swayed it in the end.

Dan, I looked at the Tamron 17-50 range and although reviews are generally pretty good they are no better than those for the Sigma. One thing that the Tamrons did get slated for was build quality, and the Sigma does of course have OS, plus HSM and an f/2.8 at the wide end.

Hopefully we should see some images taken with it here soon.

Karl


User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 469 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7495 times:

Good to hear that Karl.

Btw, hows your bigger f4 Sigma glass handling ?


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 7486 times:

Hi Vishal,

The Sigma's doing well, after a wobbly start. Having never used such a bulky lens with that kind of focal length before it took a bit of getting used to before decent images started rolling out. I was aware that there was a difference between shooting at 200mm and 300mm but I didn't realise it was so great!

I've been looking also at Sigma's 120-400 recently but came to the conclusion that a £600 lens simply can't be as good at those priced at £1,000+. Or can they.....???

I'll probably buy the 100-400L unless there really are comparable alternatives; otherwise the 400mm f/5.6 prime is very tempting! The Sigma 100-300 is pretty good but it has no stabilisation and is a bit short at the long end.

Interestingly I bought a 1.4x Extender recently. In my opinion it isn't quite as good as the 100-300 and of course is 20mm shorter. Having said that, it's okay and I have images in the database taken using it.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 469 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7454 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6):
I've been looking also at Sigma's 120-400 recently but came to the conclusion that a £600 lens simply can't be as good at those priced at £1,000+. Or can they.....???
Paulo Santos has been shooting some rippers with that lens but, then i'm not sure the lens is really tested in the pristine air of Azores.

I've always desired the 120-300 f2.8, maybe its something you can look into ?

You can keep the converter in that case, 168-420 @ f4 the envy of Manchester  


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Request Opinion On Sigma AF 70-300mm F2.8 posted Sun Apr 2 2006 15:13:05 by AirMalta
Nice Spotting 17/09 Or 18/09 posted Mon Sep 15 2008 10:43:43 by Xenon
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 posted Tue Oct 2 2007 22:07:26 by TRVYYZ
New Canon Lens 17-55 F2.8 Is posted Tue Feb 21 2006 18:19:09 by Bruce
Sigma 300 F2.8 V Sigma 120-200 F2.8 posted Fri Sep 9 2005 12:29:24 by LHRSIMON
Sigma 18/50 Lens Question posted Tue Sep 21 2004 20:21:56 by UTA_flyingHIGH
17-40 F4 Vs. 17-35 F2.8 posted Tue Jul 20 2004 06:18:01 by Futterman
Sigma 18-50, 55-200 posted Fri Jan 9 2004 02:56:04 by Futterman
70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM Or L Glass posted Thu Jan 3 2008 12:50:43 by Rsmith6621a
Nikon D80 W/ 18-135mm Or 18-200mm? posted Sat Dec 1 2007 18:38:03 by Jawed