Sigma 18-35 ART a good upgrade to Tamron 17-50mm?

[Broric]

I'm really loving the Sigma 50mm ART lens so considering upgrading the Tamron 17-50mm to the Sigma ART zoom instead.

Is it a worthwhile upgrade in terms of performance? Usage would be full-body or group portraits as well as landscape, etc.

 

[philthejuggler]

I've not used the 18-35 but as a fast zoom it's strengths are low-light performance and control of depth of field.

The 17-50 is fine for group portraits and landscapes - I doubt moving to the Sigma would make masses of difference. If control of depth of field, especially for full body portraits is of interest I'd consider the Sigma 35/1.4 art instead.

A further thought is on AF - Sigma's can be tricky to get focussing accurately even with the Sigma USB Dock - a zoom is going to more tricky. What body are you running?

 

[Broric]

I've not used the 18-35 but as a fast zoom it's strength is low-light performance and control of depth of field.

The 17-50 is fine for group portraits and landscapes - I doubt moving to the Sigma would make masses of difference. If control of depth of field, especially for full body portraits is of interest I'd consider the Sigma 35/1.4 art instead.

Would the 35 really be THAT different to the 50 and moving back a bit? I've considered that before but not sure if it's worthwhile.

 

[Boldonian]

I've had both. Both are excellent lenses if you get good copies. The 18-35 is a big heavy beast which detracted from the joy of ownership for me. Do you need f1.8 or 35 - 50mm more?

 

[philthejuggler]

Would the 35 really be THAT different to the 50 and moving back a bit? I've considered that before but not sure if it's worthwhile.

If you want more of a difference then you could try the new 24/1.4 ART.

Which body are you using?

35mm will certainly give a different perspective - by keeping a thin depth of field, but including more background you can get more context for environmental portraits and if you play it right, a lovely 3D look to the shot.

 

[minnnt]

Yes. End of.

 

[philthejuggler]

FWIW I have the Canon 50/1.2 and the Canon 35/f2 IS and that gets me through most of the day on a wedding. I use a 24-105 zoom for group shots, the 135/2.0 for speeches and I sometimes add in the 85/1.8 for portraits of the couple.

 

[Broric]

Which body are you using?

70D

 

[philthejuggler]

70D

I think I'd go 24/1.4

 

[simonbarker]

Is it a worthwhile upgrade in terms of performance? Usage would be full-body or group portraits as well as landscape, etc.

The 18-35mm is a pretty amazing lens, it replaces the need for primes in its range as optically it's as good as many primes, it's like having the ff equivalent of a 24mm, 35mm and 50mm. As you're already using a 50mm that's stepping into very similar territory and the suggestions of a wider prime to match that makes more sense to me.

I also wonder how important a f/1.8 lens is if you intend to use it for group portraits and landscapes, while it's not a downside it does make the lens heavier and bigger than it would otherwise be.