Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM - Any feedback/

[Hawthy]

After random Googling, I may have discovered a want that I never knew I needed. The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM lens. I already have the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my Nikon D5100 but that is like f/3.5 to f/5.6. So 2008, right?

Just wanted to see if anyone had any experience with this lens. I like the low light capabilities from 17 to 50 mm. It is not an expensive lens but I am a tightarse so any light shed on it would be appreciated.

[Tannin]

I've ever used one Andrew, but they are generally well regarded. As always, see what Bryan says before you decide: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-17-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

[ameerat42]

...17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM lens. I already have the 18-55mm... but that is like f/3.5 to f/5.6. So 2008, right?...

...I like the low light capabilities from 17 to 50 mm... I am a tightarse so any light shed on it would be appreciated.

Well, after you bamboozled me with figgers, I went and checked my lenses, just to get the numbers straight. It turns out I've
got - and I read these very carefully - a Σ 18-50 1:3.5-5.6 DC lens.

Why did I forget? - Because it gives me pesky green corners that I had forgotten about. But now for some payback: add to that
a Σ15-30 1:3.5-4.5 DG EX. WHy don't I use it? - Because I had just forgotten about it, mainly because I'm not so much into low-light
but low-brow :p - But I am with you on the constricted end-passage front, and apologies for the low light on that lens:o
(You meant "lens", didn't you :eek:)

[Hawthy]

In the calm, rational light of day, I decided not to buy this lens. I already have two low light prime lenses 35mm and 50mm f/1.8 that cover most of what I would do in low light and if I am shooting wider than 35mm, I am probably doing a landscape where I use an aperture between f/8 and f/16 anyway. So, while it sounded nice, I just don't think that I would use it. $370 saved. :nod:

[Tannin]

Andrew, I congratulate you on your imaginative and radical new theory of photographic hardware acquisition. This is groundbreaking stuff and you will probably have a large public building named after you, or at very least a statue.

Rational analysis of the practical use-case after the buy-lust has set in. Wow! Who'd a thunk of it?

[MattNQ]

You are very restrained Andrew. :th3:
Probably a good decision though.
The review seems to put it in a similar performance range to my Sigma 17-35/2.8-4.0 with corners being the weakest point.
While I have achieved reasonably good results with it, I have reached its limit & now need something better. You may have found yourself in a similar boat down the track.

[Hawthy]

Andrew, I congratulate you on your imaginative and radical new theory of photographic hardware acquisition. This is groundbreaking stuff and you will probably have a large public building named after you, or at very least a statue.

Rational analysis of the practical use-case after the buy-lust has set in. Wow! Who'd a thunk of it?

I know. I am very proud. It started me thinking that I should start a post about the most useless photographic item that you have bought, or even more likely, been given by a well meaning person who knows nothing about photography.

I was given a dice-sized spirit-level that I can put on the camera hot-shoe. That's pretty useless. I was also given a Kodak tripod that had big yellow plastic knobs all over it that squeaked when you tightened them and gradually and inevitably loosened. I actually took that to my first photography lesson and received very odd looks.

But I have also bought some garbage myself. A shoulder sling strap that screws into the base of the camera sounded great but has no practical use. A cheap battery pack that takes two batteries seemed to make sense and importantly made my D5100 look like a big tough full frame DSLR but in reality it is easier to just carry an extra battery in my pocket. A cheap nifty 50 that needs manual focus when I could have spent another $100 and got auto-focus. Filters, filters, filters...

Not to mention useless software. Landscape Pro! What was I thinking?

Anyone else willing to admit to buying less than worthwhile products?

[Mark L]

I know. I am very proud. It started me thinking that I should start a post about the most useless photographic item that you have bought, or even more likely, been given by a well meaning person who knows nothing about photography.

I was given a dice-sized spirit-level that I can put on the camera hot-shoe. That's pretty useless. I was also given a Kodak tripod that had big yellow plastic knobs all over it that squeaked when you tightened them and gradually and inevitably loosened. I actually took that to my first photography lesson and received very odd looks.

But I have also bought some garbage myself. A shoulder sling strap that screws into the base of the camera sounded great but has no practical use. A cheap battery pack that takes two batteries seemed to make sense and importantly made my D5100 look like a big tough full frame DSLR but in reality it is easier to just carry an extra battery in my pocket. A cheap nifty 50 that needs manual focus when I could have spent another $100 and got auto-focus. Filters, filters, filters...

Not to mention useless software. Landscape Pro! What was I thinking?

Anyone else willing to admit to buying less than worthwhile products?

This probably needs to be the first post in a new thread I reckon. Not many people will find this here.
So for wider comments how about starting that new thread here .... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/forumdisplay.php?117-f-stop

I reckon there's some stories to be had.