Sigma 17-70 OS vs non-OS

danieljamesphoto

danieljamesphoto

Messages
403
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

Looking to upgrade my walkaround lens which is currently a 4 year old Sigma 17-70 non-OS. A great lens however due to continual use it's a little loose now when zooming and has a bit of zoom creep and so I am looking into upgrading it.

Due to the sheer distance it covers i'm considering just selling it and getting the OS version, but question is, would this be a big benefit? will it help THAT much in low light (I know ideally a 2.8 would be better but I like the distance covered by this lens)?

If not then i'd like opinions on what to get please? I shoot both weddings and portraits mainly and have a 7D

many thanks :)
 
I might be able to help out :)
I had the 17-70 OS on my 40D as my walkaround lens and it was superb :)

OS system was brill. If you do video it might not be ideal as when I sold it, a member off here asked me to tell him how loud it was - and while I couldn't hear it from normal camera holding position, when I put my ear onto the lens - you could hear it - so for video its a no-no (but I think nearly all OS/IS lenses are the same) but for normal use its silent.

Macro works well too, really good infact.

I found its best stopped down, a little soft wide open. 17-50mm @ f5.6 is superb, 50-70mm @ f8 ideally, although it is perfectly usable wideopen, it just improves with a little stop down :)

Cracking lens for the money though...

Although... if I was doing it all again as they say, I would get a 17-50 2.8 lens (either the Tamron or the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS) Better quality = you can crop to 70mm with no loss, and 2.8 all the way - massive help.
Also for my use, IS/OS wasnt really essential or any help as I generally used it outdoors and was shooting over 1/100 anyway.
 
thanks for the really quick reply! very much appreciated! i don't currently do video so that's not an issue :)

hmmmmm see now i'm not sure, it's basically a case of f/stops :) as if i go to 50mm instead of 70mm i can get the 2.8 OS but losing 20mm is quite a bit :/

think a trip to jessops to try them out is in order and whilst loosing 20mm is quite a bit I have a 70-200 for longer shots anyway and the 2.8 will help in church etc I think.

Sorry i'm thinking out loud in this post, anyone any further input is welcome :D
 
Having had both, I would go for the 17-50 2.8 everytime. As said above, the 17-50 2.8 can be cropped to give an effective 70mm and the quality is still as good (if not better) than the Sigma @ 70mm

Also - I find the Tamron is sharp wide open, whereas the Sigma is not... So really you're comparing 50mm @ f2.8 vs 50mm @ f5.6 or f8 - which is quite a big difference tbh.

Also - the difference between 50 and 70 really isnt as big as it sounds. Seriously a crop would be sufficient to get back to an effective 70mm

My 2C :)
 
so basically its either;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-17-50...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1312967017&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-AF17...2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1312967033&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-optic...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1312967115&sr=1-1

which are of course all around the same priceish :/ i'm shooting with a 7D and i'm just not sure about loosing the 20mm i have with my current 17-70 for wedding shots where I haven't time to grab the 70-200...sorry i'm kinda thinking out loud but reading review after review i'm going in circles basically
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top