Sigma 17-50 (real-world shooting impression)
- Thread starter 2100
- Start date
magicianhisoka
Senior Member
true the resale value will be there. but im guessing either ways both will depreciate about 3-400 bucks in about 2 years or so. in the meantime, you can use the extra 400 to get whatever else you need e.g another flash.
depends on how you mix up your gear i suppose. but personally im leaning towards the sigma 17-50 as an upgrade
depends on how you mix up your gear i suppose. but personally im leaning towards the sigma 17-50 as an upgrade
I have use to own Canon 17-55 and now Sigma 17-50. Personally I am happier with Sigma built quality and especially now the rubbery coating is been replace for the newer batch of sigma lenses. In term of picture quality, I dun think its inferior to Canon at all (being a pixel peeps guy) and sometimes I think its better. Anyway, decision is yours and this is just my opinion
litlefiter
Senior Member
I have use to own Canon 17-55 and now Sigma 17-50. Personally I am happier with Sigma built quality and especially now the rubbery coating is been replace for the newer batch of sigma lenses. In term of picture quality, I dun think its inferior to Canon at all (being a pixel peeps guy) and sometimes I think its better. Anyway, decision is yours and this is just my opinion
Even though the sigma might have a little better image quality, i think the AF motor is still inferior to canon's USM, which may make a difference when shooting in low light.
erm..pardon me. why not switch to manual, focus and shoot? Table shots, pple dun move much. Anyway....
For that particular incident, it didn't hit me that I shd put to MF and shoot. Also due to a very special reason.
Seriously I think it would be at best agaration if you put to MF and trust the focus confirmation point under ultra difficult conditions. If it can't lock, i am not sure if we shd trust the focus confirmation point anyway. Usually I would search for an area which has white and black hence maximising contrast, or some candle area. That particular instance it still did not work.
That special reason I mentioned earlier on is due to an experience that I had with MF. With the D90 there is Live View. So sometimes for high stages the rostrum is really high, and you have difficulty taking pictures of the speaker/bride/groom if you stand close. Stand farther is good, but only if you have a 85mm or above. So I shoot with a 30/1.4 to get that nice shallow DOF effect esp nice with a nicely done ballroom backdrop. (the 7000K LEDs of Sheraton is nice!). So use AF to confirm lock on the face, switch to MF and Live View, raise your hands and aim on the LCD, shoot. But once I did this and forgot to put back to AF. You will forget if you are concentrating so much on the event and what is going on, and not focus on the technicalities of the cam. So for the next 10+ shots they were all somewhat OOF. I had the feeling that something was wrong, coz the AF was like *instant*. LOL! So from then on I make it a point not to MF unless really left with no choice.
But I guess still workable if one is desperate and have no additional body + lens else to fall back on. This is another reason why people shoot with 2 or 3 bodies. Difficult to know what can happen under stress, trying to manage people, provide good service and interacting with them in a good way. Still wanna add in manual focus, and then after that review in magnified and check faces for every of the 3 shots which are shot. :sweat:
Last edited:
Brudder! Wah lao....really pang tang now. I said that if i AF first, switch to MF and use Live View to shoot by raising the hands over the head, there is a tendency to forget to put it back to AF. Just now this exact thing happened. Lost the march-in pix with the 30/1.4 as it was still in MF. Luckily I did shoot some pix with 17-50 so that saved me with about 4 wide angle shots.
wao... thats like so much more ex than my Sigma 18-50 DC marco. (bought 2 yrs ago) wonder if the IQ worth the huge price increase
You can check it out. The new 17-50 blows the 18-50 out of the water especially for the 21-35mm results. And remember, the 17-50 in the test is already disadvantaged with a much higher resolution body so you are really peeping significantly deeper into the lens quality. 30D on the 18-50, 50D on the 17-50, that's 8MP vs 15MP.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
But the AF is fast. For 17mm, it is as fast as the 24-70 at 24mm, i A-B my 17-50 at the same time with the video playback. I guess its body AF module limited. At 50mm, it is much faster than the 24-70 at 70mm. I remember something wanting to compare with the trinity, then this is it for the AF speed.
I would expect people to not believe or even ridicule me further down in this thread, well...its really up to you.
(you can always test it out yourself, trust no one else)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKE7pP96MPM&feature=related
BTW, this view shows the 17-50 on the 50D. On my D200 the AF is much faster than this, be it full lock to lock (min focus dist -> infinity -> min focus dist again, you can do this by AF on something totally featureless or put the lens cap on). Or you put it to min focus dist and focus on infinity objects. Much faster. Not sure why this Canon 50D is slow, and there is a very long lag when it hit the end, do nothing there for 0.5s before going the other way.
On my "lowly" D200 it does not do this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmH36z-a0jg
And then you have OS. I cannot really get 3 stops reliably with it, but 2-stops is ok, at least 90% sharp shots. 1 stop is a given.
Last edited:
I have use to own Canon 17-55 and now Sigma 17-50. Personally I am happier with Sigma built quality and especially now the rubbery coating is been replace for the newer batch of sigma lenses. In term of picture quality, I dun think its inferior to Canon at all (being a pixel peeps guy) and sometimes I think its better. Anyway, decision is yours and this is just my opinion
Here's a test between the Canon and the Sigma.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/Canon_EF-S_17-55_Sigma_17-50_review5.html
Anyway I have to report that the AF accuracy has been really good. f2.8 is very accurate, normally it boils down to the user. The side points which are not cross type of AF can be used with pretty much confidence, unless if its the really dark ballroom type of conditions + low contrast subjects.
The reason why you need optical stabilisation or any type of stabilisation, is that you will never know when you will need it.
(1) Singapore Flyer, 17mm pressed against the glass. ISO 800, 1/3s. What the?
(2) Group pictures of > 6 pax, squeezy in the capsule. 1/10s to capture background 17mm. f2.8, ISO 1000 with flash.
AF-S 24/1.4 doing f2 and 1/20s to capture background. ISO 800. Flash fired.
It literally near blackout condition in there. And mind you, 200 pictures captured inside the capsule for ROM with 2 rounds of joyride, jolly well each and every picture set bracketed would have at least 1 in focus. Sigma 17-50 and AF-S 24/1.4 passed the test.
This is seriously dark.
(1) Singapore Flyer, 17mm pressed against the glass. ISO 800, 1/3s. What the?
(2) Group pictures of > 6 pax, squeezy in the capsule. 1/10s to capture background 17mm. f2.8, ISO 1000 with flash.
AF-S 24/1.4 doing f2 and 1/20s to capture background. ISO 800. Flash fired.
It literally near blackout condition in there. And mind you, 200 pictures captured inside the capsule for ROM with 2 rounds of joyride, jolly well each and every picture set bracketed would have at least 1 in focus. Sigma 17-50 and AF-S 24/1.4 passed the test.
This is seriously dark.
YvonneQinYi
New Member
r u using tamron 17-50mm ?nice or not?cos i consider to buy it.
Yep I used to use the 28-75 and 17-50 tamron non VC (actually still have them in the dry box). Can no problem for your use I guess....
Go into a good shop like John 3:16, test the heck out of it and other copies. Worth it for the slight premium you pay. Heck even AP if you have your regular guy you can spend 1hr there with your notebook.
Main thing is you shd be shooting. Seriously 18MP don't matter to 99%. Heck my 3k AF-S 24/1.4 @ f1.4 can't even outresolve 12MP. 6MP looks pretty decent.
Last edited:
magicianhisoka
Senior Member
if you know anything about sigmas, id do the same
Similar threads
