sigma 17-35 EX DG (newer version) or 18-50 2.8 DC

[waynelittle]

I have a 20d with 24-70 2.8 EX and 70-200 2.8 EX and I am over the

moon with them. However, I am some-what lacking in the wide

department. I am interested in the two lenses 17-35 EX DG & 18-50 2.8.

I have read good things about the 18-50 (and nearly got it over my

24-70, but got the latter due to portrait wedding photography.) I have

not found too much on the newer DG 17-35 lens though. i want it mainly

as a walk about/landscape and indoor wedding shot lens. Anyone got any

experience or samples ? (more-so the 17-35 ?)

 

best regards wayne little. (www.cre8iveweddingphotography.co.uk)

[jojo_ma]

You've got 2 excellent lenses already...how about adding an UWA like the 10-20EX? See my site for more www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

[yakim_peled1]

From what I see in the net, the 18-50 is much better than the 17-35 but it is not FF compatible. Is this an issue for you? Personally I'd choose the Tamron 17-35 over these two because it is both excellent, FF compatible and future compatible. But in the end, I agree with Jojo. An ultra-wide lens seems to be the best fit for your lens lineup.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[waynelittle]

Thanks jojo & yakim,

 

I had been contemplating the UWA 10-20 or 12-24. My reasons for the two afore mentioned lens' though was that they are both Faster in terms of aperture size, and give me the range to shoot 'street photography' more discreetly. These would be better to leave on the camera more of the time, do you not think? I love the 24-70, but sometimes it just seems a little too big for carrying around with me all the time.( I usually take it everywhere!)( I should love the 30 1.4 also but obviously I need to trade off against the convienience of a zoom) This is what got me thinking about the 17-35 & 18-50, because they give me that 30mm (50mm equiv) within a physicaly smaller lens, plus wide angle ( not ultra wide i know, but again heres where we have to compromise!)

 

I would love the UWA but at this stage think it might be better to have a more 'all rounder' with a little more on the wide side. I know only I can decide in the end. That was why I was trying to find a little more info about the 17-35 with regard to optical quality.I have read bad reviews about the original 82mm filter version,but wonder if these issues are now sorted with the new 72mm DG version? As I see it this should have just enough range overlap with my 24-70, that I could keep lens changes to a minimum during weddings.(when I get my second body, which will hopefully be a 5d, I know my choice problems will be sorted.)Untill then though what do you think?

 

best regards wayne.