Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

Started Mar 12, 2016 | Questions
BlueBomberTurbo Senior Member • Posts: 1,492
Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

Has anyone had any combination of these lenses side by side to compare?  The A6300 has impressed me so much, I'm gonna reward it with a nice fast standard zoom.   Already have a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 II on an LA-EA3 that works perfectly on the A6300.  Just looking for a standard zoom that will be sharp enough for it wide open throughout the frame.  A smooth focus ring would be nice, as well.  Reviews out there are kind of mixed for all of them, but then there are people that swear by them, too.  Maybe there are just a lot of just bad samples out there?

Either way, makes it hard to decide.  The Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS would be my first choice due to the constant aperture and OS.  Sony would be second because of guaranteed compatibility with the LA-EA3.  The longer, slower Sigma (non-Contemporary version) would be my third choice, but not a letdown by any means.  Also, I doubt any of these would be useful for AF video with the internal mic because of the focus motor noise, right?

 BlueBomberTurbo's gear list:BlueBomberTurbo's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Sony a6300 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM +19 more
ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Sony a6300 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
HappyBlack
HappyBlack Regular Member • Posts: 363
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

BlueBomberTurbo wrote:

Has anyone had any combination of these lenses side by side to compare? The A6300 has impressed me so much, I'm gonna reward it with a nice fast standard zoom. Already have a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 II on an LA-EA3 that works perfectly on the A6300. Just looking for a standard zoom that will be sharp enough for it wide open throughout the frame. A smooth focus ring would be nice, as well. Reviews out there are kind of mixed for all of them, but then there are people that swear by them, too. Maybe there are just a lot of just bad samples out there?

Either way, makes it hard to decide. The Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS would be my first choice due to the constant aperture and OS. Sony would be second because of guaranteed compatibility with the LA-EA3. The longer, slower Sigma (non-Contemporary version) would be my third choice, but not a letdown by any means. Also, I doubt any of these would be useful for AF video with the internal mic because of the focus motor noise, right?

No matter what LA-EA adapter, it won't support OS, even if the lens has it.
It's the biggest drawback of this setup, unfortunately.

The non-Contemporary 17-70 is quite worse than Contemporary and both are left behind by 17-50 2.8 in terms of overall sharpness and artifacts.

brittonx
brittonx Senior Member • Posts: 2,445
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

HappyBlack wrote:

BlueBomberTurbo wrote:

Has anyone had any combination of these lenses side by side to compare? The A6300 has impressed me so much, I'm gonna reward it with a nice fast standard zoom. Already have a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 II on an LA-EA3 that works perfectly on the A6300. Just looking for a standard zoom that will be sharp enough for it wide open throughout the frame. A smooth focus ring would be nice, as well. Reviews out there are kind of mixed for all of them, but then there are people that swear by them, too. Maybe there are just a lot of just bad samples out there?

Either way, makes it hard to decide. The Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS would be my first choice due to the constant aperture and OS. Sony would be second because of guaranteed compatibility with the LA-EA3. The longer, slower Sigma (non-Contemporary version) would be my third choice, but not a letdown by any means. Also, I doubt any of these would be useful for AF video with the internal mic because of the focus motor noise, right?

No matter what LA-EA adapter, it won't support OS, even if the lens has it.
It's the biggest drawback of this setup, unfortunately.

The non-Contemporary 17-70 is quite worse than Contemporary and both are left behind by 17-50 2.8 in terms of overall sharpness and artifacts.

The 17-70 contemporary (in Canon or Sigma mount) will work with OS and AF using the Sigma MC-11 adapter (not available yet unfortunately)

-- hide signature --
 brittonx's gear list:brittonx's gear list
Sigma DP1 Sigma SD15 Sigma SD1 Sony a6300 Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM +6 more
nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,075
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

Sony SAL 16-50mm/2.8 was the best lens in its class (but the new fuji 16-55mm might be equally good or better). Its an outstanding lens that you can use wide open across the whole focal range.

-- hide signature --

Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Panasonic LX100 II Sony a7R IV Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-105mm F4 +4 more
val1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,346
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?
2

i would not waste the time and money to buy something till the new sigma adapter is available and tested. It opens up a whole new world of options.

 val1's gear list:val1's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D600 Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +13 more
ttan98 Senior Member • Posts: 2,407
Re: See comments inside of the three lenses.

BlueBomberTurbo wrote:

Has anyone had any combination of these lenses side by side to compare? The A6300 has impressed me so much, I'm gonna reward it with a nice fast standard zoom. Already have a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 II on an LA-EA3 that works perfectly on the A6300. Just looking for a standard zoom that will be sharp enough for it wide open throughout the frame. A smooth focus ring would be nice, as well. Reviews out there are kind of mixed for all of them, but then there are people that swear by them, too. Maybe there are just a lot of just bad samples out there?

Either way, makes it hard to decide. The Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS would be my first choice due to the constant aperture and OS. Sony would be second because of guaranteed compatibility with the LA-EA3. The longer, slower Sigma (non-Contemporary version) would be my third choice, but not a letdown by any means. Also, I doubt any of these would be useful for AF video with the internal mic because of the focus motor noise, right?

I own a A6000, the 2 Sigma lenses you mentioned and Sony 16-50mm. Also I own the Viltrox II and Techart adapters.

The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8(*) is an outstanding lens, it is NOT compatible with Sigma MC11, but I think you can use this lens with Viltox II and get good results, reason: I tested this combo with A7II it has PDAF feature similar to A6300. Obviously you need to test and confirm this feature on this combo working together. I was able to get fast and accurate focus on the A7II body.

In terms of image quality in descending order Sig. 17-50mm -->Sig. 17-70mm--->Sony 16-50mm.

Sony 16-50mm:If you take images  stop down i.e. f5.6 or smaller aperture, the images are quite good.

Sigma 17-50 and 17-70mm have a disadvantage, both are quite heavy compared to the Sony 16-50mm

* I got excellent images from this lens, from a few wedding outings, I shot mainly in manual mode.

PC Wheeler
PC Wheeler Forum Pro • Posts: 17,902
Re: See comments inside of the three lenses.

ttan98 wrote:

Sigma 17-50 and 17-70mm have a disadvantage, both are quite heavy compared to the Sony 16-50mm

Seems like almost any lens (other than the 16 and 20 pancakes) will be heavy compared to the 16-50 -- and my copy is quite usable, if not my best lens by any means.

Any lens using an adapter has one inevitable drawback, the adapter itself, which adds length and a bit of mass to the system.

-- hide signature --

Phil

 PC Wheeler's gear list:PC Wheeler's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS Panasonic ZS100 Sony RX10 IV
ttan98 Senior Member • Posts: 2,407
Re: See comments inside of the three lenses.

PC Wheeler wrote:

ttan98 wrote:

Sigma 17-50 and 17-70mm have a disadvantage, both are quite heavy compared to the Sony 16-50mm

Seems like almost any lens (other than the 16 and 20 pancakes) will be heavy compared to the 16-50 -- and my copy is quite usable, if not my best lens by any means.

Any lens using an adapter has one inevitable drawback, the adapter itself, which adds length and a bit of mass to the system.

I will be writing a short summary on my experience with my A6000, Techart and Sigma 17-70mm lens, wait for it, it may come as a surprise.

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 5,034
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

My own personal opinions plus one fact:

* Sigma has sold at lest three optically-different 17-70mm lenses: first came the 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5, then the first 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS, and most recently the 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS Contemporary. It appears that the newest version is the best, so if you get one, make sure to get the Contemporary.

* I've had for years, and been very happy with, the Sony DT 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM. After much investigation and consideration, I chose it over the various Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 models (each brand has had at least two different versions), the Sony / Zeiss DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5, and the then-current Sigma 17-70mm. I'm still quite happy with my choice--even though at some focal lengths and apertures I'm not convinced it's quite as sharp as the lens it replaced, the very first (ca. 2005 or 2006) Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC (the version before the Macro). The Sony's much better focus speed and accuracy mean I get a lot more sharp shots, and on a tripod with manual focusing it's still a plenty-good performer. And it's also a little wider.

* I've thought about switching from my A580 to an A6000 or A6300 plus an LA-EA3. However, giving up image stabilization is just too big a loss, for me and my uses. Even if money were not an issue, the Sony / Zeiss E 16-70mm f/4 OSS is, by most reputable testing, not nearly as good as my lens, and the Sony E 18-105mm is worse yet.

* So if you really want an A6300 and a reasonably-good, stabilized standard zoom, you want one of the Sigma models. But it might be better to get a Canon version of the lens and an EF-to-Sony E adapter (Sigma or maybe another brand).

* Between the latest Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and 17-70mm f/2.8-4, the constant f/2.8 does not appear to be that good a performer until stopped down a bit, and on a MILK there's no issue of viewfinder brightness and less of an issue with focus accuracy, so I'd probably prefer the extra range of the 17-70--and again, just be sure to get the Contemporary version.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
ttan98 Senior Member • Posts: 2,407
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:

My own personal opinions plus one fact:

* Between the latest Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and 17-70mm f/2.8-4, the constant f/2.8 does not appear to be that good a performer until stopped down a bit, and on a MILK there's no issue of viewfinder brightness and less of an issue with focus accuracy, so I'd probably prefer the extra range of the 17-70--and again, just be sure to get the Contemporary version.

I also own the 17-70mm "C" version and 17-50mm f2.8, I found the latter to quite sharp even at f2.8, overall it still superior to the 17-70mm "C" version. I also use this lens for wedding ceremony, taken in manual mode, >90% came out very sharp at f4.0, good color rendering and image contrast.

goactive Senior Member • Posts: 1,914
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?
1

Here is some i shot last week with the a6000 and Sony 16-50mm F/2.8

It takes sharp photos but on the a6000 with the Sony adapter it is heavy. I wish they would come out with a cropped E mount 16-55 2.8 that is small and lite. If i am using a a6000 or a6300 i am using it for it being small and lite add a huge lens on it and it is no fun anymore a DSLR handles a large lens much better on the a6000 it makes the camera very front heavy and out of balance. I also do not trust the adapter over time with a heavy lens i think it will break off at some point.

 goactive's gear list:goactive's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon 1 J5 Nikon Z50 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +21 more
nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,075
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

goactive wrote:

Here is some i shot last week with the a6000 and Sony 16-50mm F/2.8

It takes sharp photos but on the a6000 with the Sony adapter it is heavy. I wish they would come out with a cropped E mount 16-55 2.8 that is small and lite.

Thanks to the good old laws of physics, a vative 16-55mm/2.8 lens won't really be any smaller. The Sony SAL 16-50mm is one the lighter ones, have a look at fuji's 16-55mm/2.8 its bigger

If i am using a a6000 or a6300 i am using it for it being small and lite add a huge lens on it and it is no fun anymore a DSLR handles a large lens much better on the a6000 it makes the camera very front heavy and out of balance. I also do not trust the adapter over time with a heavy lens i think it will break off at some point.

Its not a heavy heavy lens, now Sony 70-400mm is a heavy lens

Don't worry your camera and adapter will be fine. I used 16-35mm/2.8 and 70-400mm on my A7 for a long time.

-- hide signature --

Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Panasonic LX100 II Sony a7R IV Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-105mm F4 +4 more
goactive Senior Member • Posts: 1,914
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

I do not like using the adapter it gives the lens light loss and the focus in low light is much worse. and i hate the mount on the bottom i can not have a tripod plate on the bottom of the camera with the adapter is on so when i switch to a lens not needing the adapter i them have to add back on the plate.

Waiting for my a6300 to get here Tuesday and will test a few lens i have but i may be selling my adapter and 16-50 2.8 and all my Minolta lens.

Still trying to come up with how i would use the a6300 and a6000 on a real job with no good small 2.8 zoom lens and no large zoom lens like a 70-300 with OSS.

I have no problems shooting for fun or for a slow portrait session changing out prime lens but at a fast paced event i have no time to change out primes back and forth every few shots.

The main lens i use on my other system are a 16-55 2.8 and a 70-300 VR and then a 24-120 F4. I have the Sony 18-105 F4 and it is just not that good of a lens my other brand 24-120 F4 is much much better in every way. Sony needs a new better version of this at least.

As of right now i will be using the a6300 with a Sigma 30mm 1.4 on it when that lens is out and two Nikons do to the lens i need to use.

I am buying the Nikon D500 over a FF Sony A7II do to the poor high iso of the Sony and poor low light focus and i do not want heavy lens. The D500 is rated down to -4 low light focusing.

I could see using the Sony 16-50 2.8 i have but Sony has no camera that is worth buying that can use it. I had the A77II and sent it back my a6000 took much better photos. Will have to see if the a6300 will run the 16-50 2.8 better in low light the light low just kills it on the a6000.

I will be shooting 80% of the time on the beach and at sunset and in very harsh sunlight the a6000 can not do it it will not focus on the subject many times when the subject is very bright back lit the bright light messes up the cameras focus it will miss focus as much as 60% of the time with this kind of shot with any lens i have on it. And this is at F5.6 to F8.

 goactive's gear list:goactive's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon 1 J5 Nikon Z50 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +21 more
nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,075
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

seeing that nikon has everything you want, why not just stick with nikon?

I personally think A77II (which I also used to own) was a lot better than A6000 overall in terms of AF and ergonomics.

-- hide signature --

Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Panasonic LX100 II Sony a7R IV Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-105mm F4 +4 more
OP BlueBomberTurbo Senior Member • Posts: 1,492
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

Update:  picked up a Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8 OS at KEH for $200, and I love it!  VERY sharp wide open, and even sharper across the frame stopped down.  Bokeh is relatively smooth, with no "onion skin" like lots of zooms have.  OS is decent.  I can shoot at about 1/10 at 50mm (75mm equivalent).

As far as the build, the zoom ring is a bit stiffer than I'd like, but muscle memory will take care of that, and the focus ring, while it has a narrow range, is very smooth and accurate.  Camera is a bit front-heavy, no one-handed holding at slower shutter speeds like native lenses, but nothing bad.  For a DSLR F/2.8 zoom, it's very compact.

Finally, the AF is great on the LA-EA3.  Just as responsive as my Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 II.  Still the same limitations (Wide, Center, and Flexible Spot only), but I'm used to that coming from the DSLR world.  Tracks just as well as native glass.

Quick full res cat sample:

 BlueBomberTurbo's gear list:BlueBomberTurbo's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Sony a6300 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM +19 more
Dirk W Veteran Member • Posts: 3,436
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

Can't talk for the other lenses, but the 16-50 is awesome on the A6300 with la1.

 Dirk W's gear list:Dirk W's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Sony RX100 III Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony a5000 +9 more
RealityPC New Member • Posts: 13
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

Great picture! Are you using adaptors? If yes, which one are you using?

 RealityPC's gear list:RealityPC's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM +1 more
HappyBlack
HappyBlack Regular Member • Posts: 363
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

RealityPC wrote:

Great picture! Are you using adaptors? If yes, which one are you using?

Please, read for understanding.

BlueBomberTurbo wrote:

Finally, the AF is great on the LA-EA3. Just as responsive as my Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 II. Still the same limitations (Wide, Center, and Flexible Spot only), but I'm used to that coming from the DSLR world. Tracks just as well as native glass.

Chayagrahak Forum Member • Posts: 57
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

Not sure, how it works on Sony, but 17-70mm has been sharper than 17-50mm F/2.8 on Nikon cameras. I have not tested the contemporary one's and I believe the contemporary one has the option to adjust focus at different distances, never useful for me.

 Chayagrahak's gear list:Chayagrahak's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D750 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +13 more
NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 5,034
Re: Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS vs Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 OS vs Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM?

Not sure, how it works on Sony, but 17-70mm has been sharper than 17-50mm F/2.8 on Nikon cameras. I have not tested the contemporary one's and I believe the contemporary one has the option to adjust focus at different distances, never useful for me.

If you are judging sharpness by the results you get with auto-focus, then one lens back-focusing or front-focusing, or doing so more than another, can easily create bigger differences in the resulting image sharpness than the lenses' optical differences would. If your 17-50 is back-focusing on your camera and your 17-70 is focusing accurately, that explains it. Have you tested your camera-and-lens combinations for back- and front-focus? If you really want to test lens sharpness, then you need to use a tripod and a still subject, and use magnified live view to manual focus for optimum accuracy.

Problems with back-focus and front-focus on any particular camera-and-lens combination are exactly why the the option to adjust focus at different distances (and focal lengths) may well be useful to anyone who really cares about sharpness. Sigma introducing its dock to calibrate some of its newer lenses this way was a great service to photographers. Of course, some cameras can make similar adjustments.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads