Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 0r Sigma 17-50 f/2.8

[karikodan]

Hi,

I am a newbie starting on to dslr. My interests are landscape and low light photography. After reading through tons of web resources I think I need a fast lens with a good range. Do you think that the above lenses are suitable for me? Is 17-50 f2.8 much better over the other? If I use a lens at 50mm zoom for landscape at f/2.8 will the depth of field be shallow? At what circumstances I need f/2.8 at 50 mm? If large aperture is not very useful at long focal lengths I could go for 17-70 which is cheaper?;p

Thanks

 

[strikeback4]

the 17-70 is so-so, it is not as fast as the 17-50 due to the change in aperture when zooming, but still, its quite decent with a reproduction rate of 1:2 so u can do decent macro shot with it as well

if you want something with good image quality, go for the 17-50, or else the 17-70 will work just nice as a walkabout lens

 

[kaylan2000]

17-70 is a decent and capable lens. It was one of my favorite lens.

I know it is becoming typical thread but still can not resist in suggesting EFs 17-55. Probably the best lens (not beer) for cropped :thumbsup:

 

[sherchoo]

I would go for 17-50mm f2.8 due to the constant aperture capability.

 

[karikodan]

I think now I will go for 17-50. Thanks for your suggestions.

 

[SamTac]

I think now I will go for 17-50. Thanks for your suggestions.

:thumbsup::thumbsup: