Sigma 17-70 versus 18-200

[kasperhettinga]

I recently replaced my EOS 300 (film) with 28-105+70-300mm for a 20D body

without lenses. My old 28-105 lens has a broken autofocus and the 70-300 is too

old for the 20D body (not even upgradable).

 

Now I'm looking for new lenses. My first idea was to get a Sigma 17-70 and

70-300, to more or less match my old kit (1.6x more telezoom off course). I

however used my old 70-300 lens marginally (maybe also because I don't like to

carry it with me all the time).

 

I then read some good user reviews on the sigma 18-200 OS. This lens would match

the total range of my old lenses, without the need to change lenses.

Photozone.de however shows some problems in sharpness at a few focal lengths

which can be solved by stopping down to a higher f-value. However, as the lens

has OS, it is easier to work at a higher f-value...

This option would be cheaper (about 100 euros).

 

So, should I go for the sharper 17-70+70-300 or the 18-200 with OS/wider focal

range? I'm totally lost now...don't know which option to choose.

[amol]

It depends what is more important to you.

 

If image quality is important than get 2 lens (17-70, 70-300). If convenience is important pick the 18-200.

 

I had a similar issue several years ago. I bought a Sigma 18-125. Don't get me wrong, it is a decent lens. And it worked great for traveling around Europe. I didn't have to switch out lenses. I knew it's limits, (such as, better IQ when stopped down).

 

 

However, I eventually bought a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (The Sigma 17-70 was my second choice), even though it is not as convenient as the 18-125. I love the IQ and the f/2.8 for low light work. I still have my 18-125 as "back-up", but only use it when I need the convenience and IQ is NOT as important. (family parties etc.)

[William Michael]

I suggest take a step back and FIRST look at how much you use the 50 to 70 range.

 

Then I would look at the good points Amol makes: with which I agree.

 

Personally, I see better value in a lens like the Tamron, Amol bought, because it is fast (always my main priority) and has good IQ: I would trade both those points for the 50 to 70mm range on an APS-C body.

 

I think the first point is to evaluate how much 50 to 70 will be used . . . then all the other things that are important to you.

 

WW

[kasperhettinga]

Thanks for the responses. With my 35mm-film camera, I actually replaced the standard 28-80mm for 28-105: I like to take portrait/playing pictures of small children, for which a focal length of around 100mm is quite useful. So that was my reason to prefer the 17-70 over a 17-50 lens. (I temporarily have the 18-55 kitlens at the moment, and have tried multiple times in vain to turn the zoom a bit past 55 ;))

 

For low light/indoor situations, I think about getting the 50/1.8 lens. But as most of my pictures are with good daylight, this is not a main consideration.

 

I think my question comes down to whether you loose more in IQ than you win with OS/zoomrange when looking at the 18-200.

[kasperhettinga]

In stead of reading more on the internet, I've been doing some thinking about what I normally shoot, as William suggested!

 

The ranges I normally use (FF) are 80-105 for kid-shooting and portraits. And I use 28-35mm for landscape and cityscape. I used the 70-300 lens only in Namibia once for wildlife (6 years ago) and from that point on only for macro (1:2 on my old sigma APO lens).

 

So if I want these things in a new lens the 17-70 covers all three needs: 17-20mm for landscape/cityscape, 55-70 for kids/portraits, and a 1:2.3 macro. And then, a 10-20mm lens may be a more sensible addition for the landscape/cityscape pics, than buying a telezoom which I hardly use anyway. And if needed, I still have the 70-300 attached to my film-EOS...

[amol]

Looks like you figured it out.

 

Not sure I communicated it clearly, but I had meant to imply that the 17-70 will give nicer IQ than the 18-200.

 

In general, spreading out the focal lengths between several lenses will result in better IQ, than a single lens (18-200).

[kasperhettinga]

As I was tired of reading even more reviews and doing more thinking, I just decided to act: I bought the sigma 17-70 today with UV&CP filter 2nd hand from someone living close to my home town. Wonderful lens: pictures out of the camera are so much better than the 18-55 kitlens...and the extra range to 70mm is also highly regarded :)

[markonestudios]

Another point to note for the future. Any lens with a 11x magnification (eg the 18-200) will definitely not have great image quality. Such a wide range of focal length is bound to require major compromises in image quality...