Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 ? at DVinfo.net

Steve Oakley · December 12th, 2010, 09:09 PM

any one tried this lens ? thoughts ? it seems to focus in the correct direction, although it looks like a short 45deg turn.

optical performance wide open ?

I"ve got a tamron 17-50 right now that I'd sell and replace with this lens.

Bill Pryor · December 13th, 2010, 03:33 PM

I've used a Tokina 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50, but not the Sigma. From what I've read in more than one place, the Tamron is the sharpest of the bunch. I bought the Tokina because it was more solid and had a better focus ring. It was sharp at 2.8 zoomed wide. It was a little soft when zoomed in to 50mm at 2.8, but that didn't bother me since I used it for a wide angle. My experience with all of those relatively cheap lenses is that they have imperfections that you have to work around. I got a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 once but sent it back because it was overly soft at 24mm wide open ,and that 2.8 at wide angle was the main reason I bought it. Conversely, I was able to work around the Tokina's long end softness because I had another lens to cover me in that length; so its imperfection wasn't a problem for me.

Make sure you buy a lens from a reputable place like B&H or Adorama that will take it back without a hassle if you don't like it.

Steve Oakley · December 13th, 2010, 04:39 PM

does the tokina have backwards focus ? to me thats the really bad part of the tamron, and why I want to replace it. for stills its a sharp nice lens to use. for video, I'm not so crazy about it. thats why the sigma caught my eye, looks like it focuses in the right direction.

Taky Cheung · December 14th, 2010, 01:18 AM

I am using this sigma lens 17-50mm f2.8. It's a great lens, affordable price. The image quality is noticeably better than the stock canon lens, in terms of sharpness and color rendition. It's noticeable.

One important thing is, the zoom ring direction and focus ring direction are same as Canon lens. That's one important factor for me in selecting lens. I won't go with Tamron or Tokina because of that reason.

Heiko Saele · January 9th, 2011, 04:22 PM

Do you mean the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8?

For shooting stills I replaced this lens with the incredibly sharp Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.
Now I got a 7D and for video, the Sigma with it's softer picture is better in my opinion. The Tamron with its really sharp and punchy image amplifies the aliasing effects, I think. Also its focus wheel turns the wrong way, so it's really hard to shoot with when you're used to "normal" lenses.

I'm glad I haven't sold the Sigma yet, I will definitely keep it for shooting video! I will however also keep the Tamron for most stills, although I don't like its bokeh (which is not really soft, but relatively edgy)

December 12th, 2010, 09:09 PM	#1
Steve Oakley Trustee Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United States Posts: 1,158	Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 ? any one tried this lens ? thoughts ? it seems to focus in the correct direction, although it looks like a short 45deg turn. optical performance wide open ? I"ve got a tamron 17-50 right now that I'd sell and replace with this lens. __________________ Steve Oakley DP • Audio Mixer • Editor • Colorist http://stevenoakley.com

December 13th, 2010, 04:39 PM	#3
Steve Oakley Trustee Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United States Posts: 1,158	does the tokina have backwards focus ? to me thats the really bad part of the tamron, and why I want to replace it. for stills its a sharp nice lens to use. for video, I'm not so crazy about it. thats why the sigma caught my eye, looks like it focuses in the right direction. __________________ Steve Oakley DP • Audio Mixer • Editor • Colorist http://stevenoakley.com

December 14th, 2010, 01:18 AM	#4
Taky Cheung Inner Circle Join Date: May 2007 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 2,114	I am using this sigma lens 17-50mm f2.8. It's a great lens, affordable price. The image quality is noticeably better than the stock canon lens, in terms of sharpness and color rendition. It's noticeable. One important thing is, the zoom ring direction and focus ring direction are same as Canon lens. That's one important factor for me in selecting lens. I won't go with Tamron or Tokina because of that reason. __________________ LA Color Pros Blog RODE Authorized Reseller . Comer LED Camera Lights . TakyBox HTML5 Menu Generator

December 13th, 2010, 03:33 PM	#2
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I've used a Tokina 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50, but not the Sigma. From what I've read in more than one place, the Tamron is the sharpest of the bunch. I bought the Tokina because it was more solid and had a better focus ring. It was sharp at 2.8 zoomed wide. It was a little soft when zoomed in to 50mm at 2.8, but that didn't bother me since I used it for a wide angle. My experience with all of those relatively cheap lenses is that they have imperfections that you have to work around. I got a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 once but sent it back because it was overly soft at 24mm wide open ,and that 2.8 at wide angle was the main reason I bought it. Conversely, I was able to work around the Tokina's long end softness because I had another lens to cover me in that length; so its imperfection wasn't a problem for me. Make sure you buy a lens from a reputable place like B&H or Adorama that will take it back without a hassle if you don't like it.

January 9th, 2011, 04:22 PM	#5
Heiko Saele Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Wurzburg, Germany Posts: 316	Do you mean the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8? For shooting stills I replaced this lens with the incredibly sharp Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Now I got a 7D and for video, the Sigma with it's softer picture is better in my opinion. The Tamron with its really sharp and punchy image amplifies the aliasing effects, I think. Also its focus wheel turns the wrong way, so it's really hard to shoot with when you're used to "normal" lenses. I'm glad I haven't sold the Sigma yet, I will definitely keep it for shooting video! I will however also keep the Tamron for most stills, although I don't like its bokeh (which is not really soft, but relatively edgy)