Sigma 17-50 or 17-70

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 30033
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 30033

Guest
I am looking at replacing my kit lens for an everyday lens and am tempted by these lenses. The 17-70 seems quite a bit cheaper, but why? Is the 17-50 f2.8 ex lens the better lens?

Or would you recommend something else?
 
The 17-50mm is indeed the better lens. If is F2.8 throughout the entire range which makes a big difference to many.
 
just to throw a spanner in the works if youre not looking to leave crop for some time then the sig 18-50 f2.8 macro is worth a look also. had 2 copies now (had 1 then went 1.3 sensor, recently bought the missus one) and both have been excellent image quality. i always loved the colour reproduction and sharpness.
 
I don't really intend on using this as a macro, but want as much range as possible, but it is not to be to the detriment of the quality.

So the 17-70 is the same sharpness of quality as the 17-50, albeit not as low an aperture?

Would you recommend any other lens in a similar range? I was looking at the Tamron 17-50 however the build quality doesn't seem as good?
 
The current version of the 17-70mm has OS too; what it doesn't have is the full-time manual focus override. I got one of the first of the current f2.8-4 versions and I'm very pleased with it. There's some pincushion distortion in the mid-focal lengths but most lenses of this range have some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top