Sigma 17-50 2.8 vs Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime

Andyvalver

Andyvalver

Messages
572
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone. I own a sigma 17-50 2.8 lens and was trying to decide if it would be worth buying a 50mm prime lens. I'd use it for portrait type stuff, but I don't know if it's worth paying for the lens considering it might not give me results that are too different to what I can get now. My sigma goes to 50mm at 2.8 with optical image stabilisation and the 50mm opens up to 1.8 aperture. Is it worth paying for the difference in aperture? Thanks.

Andy
 
Different quality to the OOF areas of the image with the 50mm too, and by f2.8 the 50 is getting quite sharp. Can you borrow one to see if it makes a difference?
 
As above see if you could borrow and try one. I sold all the primes I had as I prefer the zoom/mid zooms. Had the itch to try a 50mm on FF and cannot get on with it.
 
FWIW I really like my Sony 50 f1.4 on crop - super-sharp, fast short tele. The Nikon 50 f1.8 (both G or D - I sent a G back because I thought it must be faulty at first) isn't in the same class for sharpness, but it is OK.
 
Thanks for the feedback. I'll try and do that. Maybe I can pick up a cheap second hand lens.
 
I'd go for the 85 instead.
For portraits 50mm on a crop is still at the short end of attractive.

The 50mm is a bit better than what you have, the 85mm is miles 'better'.

When me and the mrs shot crop, we used to fight over the 85mm, I nearly bought a 2nd so we could both carry one.
 
Phil V said:
I'd go for the 85 instead.
For portraits 50mm on a crop is still at the short end of attractive.

The 50mm is a bit better than what you have, the 85mm is miles 'better'.

When me and the mrs shot crop, we used to fight over the 85mm, I nearly bought a 2nd so we could both carry one.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. I am drawn to the 85mm for sure. It's probably what I'll go for in the end. Just wondering if the 50mm prime is much different to my sigma. [emoji5]
 
Andyvalver said:
Thanks for the reply. I am drawn to the 85mm for sure. It's probably what I'll go for in the end. Just wondering if the 50mm prime is much different to my sigma. [emoji5]
Click to expand...

Well it's different (but not very).
And a lot of people would recommend it; but I'm not one of them ;)
IMHO whilst it's a cheap foray into prime lenses, a 50mm on APSC is crap (too narrow for walkabout - too wide for portraits). I think I counted once and I only ever shot about a hundred frames at 50mm in over 10 years of shooting crop cameras, and literally thousands on the 85mm, OTOH - in a couple of years back on FF I've already used 50mm more than I did on crop.
 
Phil V said:
Well it's different (but not very).
And a lot of people would recommend it; but I'm not one of them ;)
IMHO whilst it's a cheap foray into prime lenses, a 50mm on APSC is crap (too narrow for walkabout - too wide for portraits). I think I counted once and I only ever shot about a hundred frames at 50mm in over 10 years of shooting crop cameras, and literally thousands on the 85mm, OTOH - in a couple of years back on FF I've already used 50mm more than I did on crop.
Click to expand...
I think my only problem with getting an 85mm lens on a crop sensor is the room I might need to use it. But I think it would be an amazing lens.
 
Andyvalver said:
I think my only problem with getting an 85mm lens on a crop sensor is the room I might need to use it. But I think it would be an amazing lens.
Click to expand...
I'd recommend you start thinking more about your aims than your limitations

Just realised how poncey that sounded.

Have no fear of 'not having enough room', buy the lens and learn how to use it - you don't need as much space as you might imagine
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I'd recommend you start thinking more about your aims than your limitations

Just realised how poncey that sounded.

Have no fear of 'not having enough room', buy the lens and learn how to use it - you don't need as much space as you might imagine
Click to expand...

2018-01-18_02-37-06.jpg

Went with the 85mm in the end [emoji23]
 
Just a quick comment on lenses for portraits.

Years ago when I bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (a similar lens to the Sigma f2.8 zoom) the first thing I did was take a few tightish portrait shots of my then GF and she wasn't at all happy with the results :D From my point of view they showed what the lens was capable of and it was a very sharp lens :D but from her point of view that very nice sharp lens and the tightness of the portrait shot showed evert line, wrinkle and blemish :D

I leaned a lesson that day and I now go for a nice look rather than a very sharp picture :D especially when taking pictures of people.
 
woof woof said:
Just a quick comment on lenses for portraits.

Years ago when I bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (a similar lens to the Sigma f2.8 zoom) the first thing I did was take a few tightish portrait shots of my then GF and she wasn't at all happy with the results :D From my point of view they showed what the lens was capable of and it was a very sharp lens :D but from her point of view that very nice sharp lens and the tightness of the portrait shot showed evert line, wrinkle and blemish :D

I leaned a lesson that day and I now go for a nice look rather than a very sharp picture :D especially when taking pictures of people.
Click to expand...
[emoji1]

I have the sigma version of that lens. It's a great lens but heavy as hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top