# First shots with the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and first impressions...



## robertwsimpson (Feb 24, 2010)

First off, some photos (click for 100% samples):
17mm f/2.8 (no editing other than exposure correction and RAW-JPG conversion)





50mm f/2.8 (no editing other than exposure correction and RAW-JPG conversion)




First, let me say that $350 for a lens that will do constant 2.8 aperture is pretty much a no brainer.  Just for the ability to take low light shots at different focal lengths, it was totally worth it for me.  The image quality is pretty good too.  Even the colors are more vibrant than the kit lens this is replacing.  It's a fantastic lens.  That being said, there is one disappointing thing.  In my research, I came across a snip-it that said this lens had a weak left side.  I didn't really know what this meant, since it doesn't make sense to me that a lens would have a weak side when the glass elements are round and theoretically should be the same quality in concentric circles around the center point of the photo.  Sure enough, if you look at the photos (especially the park bench, you can see that the left side is slightly softer than the right.  This trait appears to improve slightly as the lens is stopped down.  All in all, I am very impressed with this budget piece of glass.  It will definitely last me until I can afford some big boy glass!

Hope this helps!

Here are more photos:
47mm f/5.0




19mm f/4.0




50mm f/4.0




50mm f/4.0


----------



## Felix0890 (Feb 24, 2010)

Where did you get it? They're selling on Amazon brand new for $200.  I might get it over the Tamron version and save myself a couple hundred bucks.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 24, 2010)

Ah crap, I totally typed sigma instead of tamron.

This is the one I got:
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1267021643&sr=8-1"]This is the one I am talking about.[/ame]


----------



## brianT (Feb 24, 2010)

> Ah crap, I totally typed sigma instead of tamron.
> 
> This is the one I got:
> This is the one I am talking about.
> ...


That's funny because after I read through the entire post and looked at the photos I was wondering why I never heard about a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 (constant aperture). Then it dawned on me that just recently Sigma announced one:
Sigma releases 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM: Digital Photography Review

Then I was wondering how you were able to purchase it so soon after the press release.  But it's Tamron after all.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 24, 2010)

yep, I'm an idiot 


seriously though, it's a great lens!


----------



## R6_Dude (Feb 24, 2010)

Did you buy it used? Amazon and BH has it listed for $459.  I was considering this lens but the VC version.  Did you consider it as well?


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 24, 2010)

I bought this used on Craigs List.


I was considering the VC version, but I had read that the IQ was worse than the non-VC version, and for these focal lengths, VC is not a necessity for me.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 24, 2010)

What the heck is this!?


----------



## icassell (Feb 24, 2010)

Hmmmm ... those images look awfully familiar ...


----------



## icassell (Feb 24, 2010)

I have had the Tamron 17-50 since 2007 as my walkaround lens.  I had it for my 30D and now my  7D.  I don't see it as a compromise at all and, in fact, love it.  It is solidly built and has excellent IQ. I could probably afford "big boy" ("L") glass, but have felt no rush to go out and spend for it.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 24, 2010)

Do you notice the weak left side like I do?

Man, I'd consider cutting off a toe to shoot video through this lens.


----------



## PackingMyBags (Feb 24, 2010)

Love my copy. It only gets dull in the far corners at 17mm. After that it goes away.


----------



## icassell (Feb 24, 2010)

Nope, I haven't noticed a weak side on my copy.

I actually haven't tried video with it yet.  I've barely used the video on my 7D since I got it.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 24, 2010)

hm interesting.  The left side is not bad enough to worry me at all.  I can only really tell when I am pixel peeping.


----------



## myfotoguy (Feb 25, 2010)

Another happy owner of this lens. After 2.5 years the front where you screw in the filters started to wobble on mine. It has a 6 year warranty, but I I didn't send it in, because I use mine all the time. So I found some directions somewhere and tightened it myself. My copy is great, have not noticed any issues, other than the build quality not made like the "big boy" lenses.

I have considered VC too, but not sure. The new Sigma looks interesting. But I rarely shoot museum type stuff at low light where I can't use a triopod, but it would still be a nice to have, even at shorter lengths.

Anyway, someone earlier mentioned it's not a compromise. I don't think it really is either. Enjoy your "new" lens!


----------



## Jacki (Feb 25, 2010)

I love all of the pictures of the birds!! :thumbsup:


----------



## GeneralBenson (Feb 26, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> What the heck is this!?



Apparently someone just plagarized your forum post and stole your work.  I'd be pretty pissed if I were you and file a complaint and order them to take it down.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 26, 2010)

aw man, once you edit the photo and save the replacement, it changes the link.  I put text on all the photos that said easyphototoday.com stole them.  bummer.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 26, 2010)

and the pictures are still up in that thread! what the heck man!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 26, 2010)

they are hosting my photos.  That's not right.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 26, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> and the pictures are still up in that thread! what the heck man!




Wow, some ballsy thieves. I figured the would just refer to YOUR stored photos and their current locations, but it would seem like they have actually well and truly "lifted" your original work and are hosting it themselves, on another server.

As you found out earlier with the European skiing area photos, the information found in tags on Flickr allows image thieves to search, locate, and then rip-off images with wonderful efficiency.


----------



## Vautrin (Feb 26, 2010)

3 words: DMCA Takedown Notice


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 26, 2010)

Vautrin said:


> 3 words: DMCA Takedown Notice



what's that???


----------



## icassell (Feb 26, 2010)

Sample DMCA Take Down Letter | IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law


----------



## fast eddie (Feb 26, 2010)

I would have expected more from a photography site that spells "Galeries" with one "l" on their navigation bar.


----------



## myfotoguy (Feb 26, 2010)

Unbelievable. That's frustrating seeing them steal your stuff! Just this morning, I was thinking about other photogs with online presence and if there is any concern over not just photo and content theft, but identiity theft.


----------



## Dao (Feb 26, 2010)

Sent an abuse complaint to  abuse@liquidweb.com regarding the copyright infringement. 
Tell them this site with link to this thread and then the offensive site with link that hosted in their network.  And ask them to take action to remove the copyrighted material from their network since you did not authorized them to do so.


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Mar 1, 2010)

Where did the pictures go? Its says they have been removed?

Anyway, I just got a Tokina 16-50mm F/2.8 and its quickly become my favorite lens. I had the 12-24 Tokina also but figured I probably won't miss the extra 4mm and this ones faster, so I sold that. I considered the Tamron which is why I was curious to see the pics.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Mar 2, 2010)

check out my flickr.  It's the only lens I've used for the past week or 2.


----------

