What is your opinion - Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS or Canon EF-S 24mm STM? (Page 2): My opinion is - you should should ultimately get the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and the Canon 70-300 IS II nano -...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

tonal wrote:

Hi everybody, br br It is quite some time that I ... (show quote)

My opinion is - you should should ultimately get the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and the Canon 70-300 IS II nano - really good lenses and bang for the buck ....

Not sure why you are considering a 24 prime ? ! ...

..

tonal Loc: Greece

gordone wrote:

With the 17-55 f2.8 used one, you can use it for 3 years and sell it for what you paid for it. Try that with a Sigma....not so much

I would not disagree with you but why would you sell such a great lens in the first place if you are not changing system or moving to FF?
And I do not have in mind any of that.
I am not a pro and I don't make a living out of photography either to invest heavily on cameras and lenses.
I am just trying to do my hobby in a cost effective way.

When I got the 18-55 STM it was a huge upgrade with respect to the 18-55 DC III not only because of the IS or the STM focusing motor. It is much sharper as well and for a little less than 120 euros
there was nothing to think about. But if the mount of the DC was not damaged I would stick with it.
I would not mind staying with the 18-55 STM but it is low light performance that is missing and shallow depth of field when light is enough.

tonal Loc: Greece

imagemeister wrote:

My opinion is - you should should ultimately get the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and the Canon 70-300 IS II nano - really good lenses and bang for the buck ....

Not sure why you are considering a 24 prime ? ! ...

..

I am sure both of them are very good lenses but i would stick to my 55-250 STM.
I like it and use it a lot.
It is sharp enough, it is very light and compact and it is impressively affordable.

After all 300mm to 250mm would not make much of a difference.
If I was about to get longer focal length I would go for a 150-600.

As for the sigma it just offers a F stop more regarding the lenses I have in the long end and it costs a little more than the constant F2.8.

Low light performance is what I would prefer the most.

I was reviewing my photos these days in LR and all I see is either noisy shots or shaky hands in low light with the 50mm in 100% magnification.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

tonal wrote:

Hi everybody, br br It is quite some time that I ... (show quote)

I would just add the EFs 24mm.
Your current zoom lenses are quite good even if a bit slower.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

tonal wrote:

I am sure both of them are very good lenses but i ... (show quote)

Just so you know, I have tested the 55-250 against the 70-300 IS II. The 250 is a good lens and as you say small/light. - The 70-300 is a slightly larger better GREAT lens for serious shooters. The 150-600 is nice - but you will not want to carry the size and weight or pay for it's 150-300mm part of it's range !

My only point is, for serious budget shooters, it is very hard to beat the Sigma 17-70 and Canon 70-300 nano combo .

..

..

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

tonal like nimbushopper and Royce Moss I shoot Nikon and indeed have the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens for Nikon. It is a winner! I would never sell this optic since it is far superior to Nikon's DX offerings (in my humble estimation). Sadly Nikon doesn't market "Professional Grade" optics for it's DX line thus third party kit is my only viable alternative...

The build quality of this Sigma is excellent, comes with a plush well padded case... unlike Nikon's (now mostly plastic) DX lenses...

I shoot this on a D7200 (and D7100). There are caveats on the Sigma working with the D7200 AF system...
Only the central "cross-type" senors will lock effectively in low light, albeit since I use back-button and recompose it isn't an issue for me.

I would suggest you ignore those who would encourage you to go with a broader zoom range... there are compelling reasons that Pro glass comes in narrow zoom ranges... i.e. 24-70mm and 70-200mm... this sigma is in essence a 27-70mm on a Nikon DX body. This limited range has allowed Sigma to produce a "Pro" grade optic of considerable merit and worth... wider zoom ranges are generally cherished by hobbyist many of which are either naive or lack the ability to discern the merit of superb acuity and exceptional image contrast in a lens...

btw, when this lens was produced Nikon actually brought a civil suite against Sigma for copyright infringement of it's VR system... Yes the image stabilization is actually that good...

Hope this helps or is at least food for thought...
I wish you well on your journey tonal

DrJ

I faced the same decision for my Canon 40D and 7D. I bought the Canon 24/2.8 pancake used at my local camera shop and it is very sharp and extremely handy. I can hold well so the lack of IS doesn't bother me. FYI, I also considered buying the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC lens and evaluated 3 specimens. Two were sharp, and the 3rd was very sharp. I bought the very sharp one and it is close to a prime in performance on the 7D. Lenses are individuals and tolerances can stack to make a Canon L lens only good and another lens spectacular. See the excellent review in Photozone of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 non VC. A very cheap option is to use a manual focus legacy 24mm lens on your canon using a cheap adapter. I use a Tamron Adaptall 24/2.5 and it is excellent. For wide angle scenes, focus is often not critical as you may want objects at different distances to be reasonably focused and stop down. I've not evaluated the Sigma 17-50/2.8, but have observed AF issues with older Sigma lenses. If possible, try the lens you intend to buy. Good luck, DrJ

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

DrJ wrote:

I faced the same decision for my Canon 40D and 7D.... (show quote)

A 24mm FD lens with an adapter works. But the adapter does degrade a bit even the best. I have 3 of them before I found a fairly decent one and it still has some degradation. Stick with EOS lenses for EOS cameras you will be much happier.

DrJ

Architect1776 wrote:

A 24mm FD lens with an adapter works. But the adapter does degrade a bit even the best. I have 3 of them before I found a fairly decent one and it still has some degradation. Stick with EOS lenses for EOS cameras you will be much happier.

There are better MF choices than FD lenses for Canon EOS bodies. Because of flange-to-sensor distance, FD lenses require an optical, ie glass-containing, adapter to enable infinity focus. Nikon, Pentax K, Olympus, Tamron Adaptall, and M42 lenses work very well on EOS bodies with a glass-free adapter and achieve infinity focus. Save the FD lenses for mirrorless bodies where an optical adapter is not necessary. DrJ

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

DrJ wrote:

There are better MF choices than FD lenses for Canon EOS bodies. Because of flange-to-sensor distance, FD lenses require an optical, ie glass-containing, adapter to enable infinity focus. Nikon, Pentax K, Olympus, Tamron Adaptall, and M42 lenses work very well on EOS bodies with a glass-free adapter and achieve infinity focus. Save the FD lenses for mirrorless bodies where an optical adapter is not necessary. DrJ

Yes, I know all this. And much more. That is why the new EOSW R is so great as it will allow ALL R, FL and FD lenses as well as the original RF Canon/Leica lenses to be used.

cmaxi

The Sigma 17-50 is fabulous........ The Canon 24mm STM is blahhhh........., but good.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

cmaxi wrote:

The Sigma 17-50 is fabulous........ The Canon 24mm STM is blahhhh........., but good.

Have you ever used or owned a Canon 24mm STM?
https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24mm-f28-stm.htm

tonal Loc: Greece

Lack of IS is a big minus for me.

Sigma seems to be OK regarding AF and OS (Tamron 17-50 F2.8 looks like it has issues with respect to AF and VC).

Is there any software tool that I can use to retrieve data from the pictures I have taken and get statistics of the focal lengths and lens I use?

gordone Loc: Red Deer AB Canada

Use Picture Information Extractor. It's free

tonal Loc: Greece

gordone wrote:

Use Picture Information Extractor. It's free

Thanks, I just used LR classic to get the data I wanted.
I have a CC subscription but i didn't have the LR classic installed until now.
In LR CC there is not such an extended filtering of metadata.

All I can see is that I mostly take pictures in the extremities of the zoom lenses.

Pictures taken at 10, 18, 35, 50, and 250mm are almost the same number each.
At 55mm I got 30% of that and there are some taken at 70 and 100mm each less than 10% of the above.

That means that I use the primes a lot.
Half of them are wide open and the rest are up to F11.

But I guess I have to review my photos and see what I like more.