Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 vs Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 - Which One Should I Buy for Street & Landscape Photography 

The most outstanding feature of the 18-35mm evidently is its sharpness. When testing the Sigma 18-35 against the Sigma 17-50, the Tamron 17-50, and the Canon 17-55 Christopher Frost said ( paraphrasing ) ' The other lenses are very sharp , but the Sigma 18-35mm has them for breakfast ' .

I have 17-50mm , love it and I added a 50mm 1.8mm as well for fast prime

Excellent video. I was for a long time comparing these two lenses for video in particular to use with my my Ursa Mini 4.6k, Pocket Cinema Camera and GH5 (metabones). I went with the 17-50 as it offered more focal range, OS for handheld stabilisation and 2.8 with metabones is like 1.8. Also much cheaper.

RIP this great individual and youtuber. I am having a hard time believing.

Can focus settings be difficult when using the Sigma 18-35mm on a Nikon D7100?

I shoot portraits only and i use 50 mm prime lens on nikod d3300 So is it sharper than 50 mm prime ?

Hi. im insterested more with the video work .. so what lens is better for me sigma 18-35 1.8 or tamrons new 10-24 3.5-4.5 VC ?

Am using the d500 and at the moment am using 85 1.4 art, 24-70, 70-200 . Am looking for a wide angle for sport for low light situations would you recommend this 18-35?

anyone knows if a new 17-50 will be released anytime soon?

Sigma 17-50mm can it fit on 5d mark 3? Because someone complaining about using on 5d2

would a 17-50/2.8, a 70-200/2.8, and maybe a couple primes for certain uses be a pretty good setup to put in my bag... looking to move up from some kit lenses and a nifty fifty f/1.8

If you have to choose between a used in good shape Nikon 17-55mm F2.8G\AF-S DX IF-ED and the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC HSM. Which one I can find better image quality and be more sharp though the whole zoom range. Not for Video.

The Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 is a great lens, but against the 17-50 F/2.8 it has 6 disadvantages, in my opinion of using both. 1. It's much more expensive considering you can buy the 17-50 F/2.8 on eBay brand new for $300 shipped. 2. It's much heavier. 3. It's much longer. 4. It has a much shorter focal length. 5. It has no optical stabilization. 6. It's not razor sharp wide open but gets there at F2.8. My recommendation is to get the 17-50 F/2.8 and to pair it up with a prime of your choosing to spend the rest of your $600 budget, or just pocket the savings.

Has anyone had any issues with the lack of image stabilization with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8?

My recomendation between the two would be to also get the 17-50 f2.8. It is a great lens, although it is a little slower to focus than the nikon 35/50 1.8G primes. I would analyze your favorite pictures after you spent some time with then lens before you purchase one of the 1.8G primes. For landscape work, I found myself loving the Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD IF. Yes, it is not a "fast" lens, but I'm often wanting more in focus, not less so tend to shoot between f5.6-f11 on a tripod. The zoom ability allows me to get in tight on details. Zooming with your feet doesn't always work so well on mountain trails. Since it has such range, I don't have to carry another lens with me which saves some weight. I still carry my 50mm 1.8G with me as I use it for any panoramas. I would rather use a fixed focal length when attempting to combine multiple pictures to avoid the possibility of zoom creep. Both of these zoom lenses do suffer (over time especially) with zoom creep if the lens is pointed down. I found a large rubber band that fits snugly against the zoom dial and the lens barrel will help eliminate this. This is really only a problem when your not at the widest focal length, as both lenses have locks that you can engage at that point.

I use the 17-50 with a metabones speed booster on a GH5, making it a f2.0. The extra room for zoom comes in handy. Also use a 25mm prime f1.7, which on a GH5 is a 50mm

Whats the closest lens to this that has IS?

Just hired the 18-35 for a weekend to shoot inside at a Cirque du soleil show. At 1.8 the depth of field was too short and ended up shooting mostly at 2.8 anyway. Sharpness was very good but I wish I'd had the reach of the 17-50 at times. If people are unsure, just try before you buy?

What a beautiful way of explaining. Wonderful. I find your videos very helpful! Thanks a lot

Been toying with this issue for a while, very tempting to buy sigma 18-35 but given the price the 17-50 is still great quality at much cheaper. I think for me it would be more cost effective to get the 17-50 and basically agree with your thoughts. Thanks for your help and info.

No image stabilization in the 18-35mm f/1.8...is it necessary?

I have a Q. Ask.... I own a nikon d5300 with its kit lenses and I also have 50mm f1.8g lens..... But now I am thinking of buying a 35mm 1.8f lens and i came across the sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens. Plz someone say which one should i buy???

Hi, I got this 18-35mm, but I miss out that little extra zoom range, what is your recommendation for second zoom lens next to 18-35? I tought I get 50-100 sigma, but it is pretty expensive and not as sharp at all. Thanx

Do I really miss alot of image quality if I were to pick 17-50 ? Im hobbyist and use canon 77d APSC for family events(indoor), travel and hanging out with friends....

I'm also looking at these two lenses, as well as the sigma 24-70 2.8. I'm looking at a great zoom lens for weddings. I shoot canon and I have a 7D crop sensor, so I realize there's a 1.6 crop factor in there. I have also a 50 mm 1.8, a 70-200 f4l, an 85mm 1.8. Plus my canon kits lens which is on its way out. 18-55 f3.5/4.5.. can you please help. Love your videos. So informative

The 18-35mm f 1.8 Sigma is useful if you have a DX camera 24MP or above, take most pictures with a tripod or high shutter speed, and sharpness and primelike bokeh is your topmost priority. Its sharpness matches that of any fullframe prime! However, most amateurs will not be able to squeeze the full quality out of this lens (it not being image stabilized being the most important reason). The 17-50mm f2.8 is a fantastic all-round (wide to 75mm equivalent) image-stabilised lens, and among the best mid-range zoom lens in the market giving great overall sharpness and decent bokeh. It has been flooded with excellent reviews from both amateurs and semi-pros alike (also pros who use the DX format). Only a pixel-peeper might be able to differentiate its quality from the other lens with difficulty. Functionality and valuewise, IMO, is much better than the the wide-zoom 18-35mm, In a nutshell, 18-35mm should only be considered by pro DX users - for all others 17-50 f2.8 is the better choice.

Very valid argument from Matt, leaning towards the 17-50 2.8 lens..the 50mm focal length is better for portraits on a cropped sensor camera..However, just think about this what would you rather have a 27-52.5mm f2.8 lens or a 25.5-75mm f4.0..thats what the focal length and depth of field translate to for the featured Sigma lenses..that f4.0 equivalent to me is meh even with the 75mm equivalent focal length..I would rather get the 18-35mm 1.8 lens and buy another prime something like a 50mm 1.4 for portraiture. The 18-35mm 1.8 would work well for group portraits and environmental solo shots and when you really need the solo portraits or head shots..I would switch to a 50mm 1.4..the 18-35 is also a better choice just for its sharpness wide open at 1.8..

The 18-35 is a much sharper lens and is one of the art series lens aimed for professionals and people with money. I own the 18-35 and previously owned the 17-50. The 17-50 is very good but the 18-35 is outstanding.

how about nightsky photos? i think 18-35 1,8 is better right? or you have any other lens in your mind? (nikon d7200)

Awesome set for filming your videos! What a step up!

Hey, thanks for you review, I have just bought a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and I hope I will love it as you guys do.

Just an FYI, I recently purchased the 18-35 1.8 for Sony. It was on sale as were the N&C versions for $550.00. If they did the sale once, they will do it again.

I honestly feel the difference is in the low light performance, the 1.8 allows more light to the sensor without tuning up the iso. Because I am using a apsc canon 80D, the 1.8 is really good for me to shoot a night in the streets.

If you put this on a M50 with a speedbooster you get heavy vignetting on all four corners of the frame up to 26mm ?.

Completely agree with your point!

Could this Len be use for interior Real estate photography?

Hi Matt Ballard. What would you respond if the question is for using the lenses for video? Thanks!

U r right, mate . I opt for 17-50. I was eager to buy 18-35 much, but left it behind for the reason you gave.

i have the sigma 17-50mm do i still need the,should i get the ef s 24mm for versatility?

Greetings Sir. With the 80d I am really looking forward to replace my kit lens(for videography) but can't afford the sigma 18-35 & Canon 17-55. Planning to get the sigma 17-50, & your review is really helpful but doubt with the auto focus issue & the sound of auto focus from the lens especially for live recording. So, Shall I go for it? Thanks again for such a wonderful review.

Question... I shoot a lot of landscape and water scenes, primarily with my Nikon 18-55 kit on a D5300 Will the Sigma be noticeably sharper?

Awesome, thanks for the video!

I would choose Sigma 18-35mm and add a 50mm 1.8 (and maybe a 85mm 1.8)

Comparisons between sigma 17- 50mm f2.8 and tamron 17- 50mm f2.8

i own a sigma 17-50mm 2.8, its a great all round lens, i also have the nifty 50 and the canon 85mm f1.8 its a good set most situations. all are under $400 and will get you the photo you need.

I have them both. 18-35 art is much sharper, wide open.

Completely agree with your assessement of the advantages of the Sigma 17-50mm. I'm an ethnographic filmmaker and love this lens. In fact, I brought two - one for my Camera "A" and one for my Camera "B" setups when shooting. Highly recommend this lens for its versatility, aperture speed, and it is one solidly built lens as well. Great review! Thanks.

the 18-35 is better shooting the night sky or night anything else only if used on a tripod,handheld stabilization wins,faster shutter speeds don't help much as the faster speed only allow less light through. might do equal but after a point it would get worse.

I had the 18-35 on my d5600 for a while and I constantly found myself zooming to 35mm most of the times doing street photography and public gatherings. The lens is immaculate but I did feel the need for the extra zoom which the 17-50 would give me. So now I am going to get the 17-50 Sigma and see how it helps. For low-light situations, I have my trusty Nikon 50mm 1.8g prime so that is well-covered. So basically the 18-35 is a exquisite lens but not quite useful as a general lens. Thanks.

Can you mount the 17-50 on a mc-11 for the a6300?

I have the 17-50 which is tack sharp around F4 , it seems from reviews that thé 18-35 1.8 is already sharp at 1.8 which seems incredible especially when dealing with the 90D ...( Low light crippled by the 33mpx on apsc )

I gather the 18-35 is considerably sharper and for me that the deciding factor but you didn't mention sharpness?

what I don't understand is the 18-35 is a cropped sensor lens right? so what happened if I use it on a full frame lens?

I agree big time! 👍📷, good explanation.

I was considering sigma 18-35 as landscape lens for my APSC format DSLR because of its great low light capability but rarely we use that aperture in practical field. Since sharpness of these lenses are almost close enough, I found it the best replacement for the 18-55mm kit lens and also equivalent to 24-70 f/2.8 on full frame professionals swear by. The price of the 18-35 is what puts me off. 17-50 one is little less than half of 18-35. It's nearly $1000 vs $450.

A really big advantage that 17-50mm holds over the awesome fast 18-35mm is that the 17-50 has image stabilization built in. That in fact compensates for the exposure "in certain non-motion scenarios". 18-35 F1.8 isn't image stabilized which i think is quite essential for crop sensor cameras. Opt8cs in both of them is pretty good however the 17-50 is kind of a decade old now. So one might need to correct for the aberrations in post a bit more. 18-35 is a fantastic lens for the price, but has a very narrow range of usability. Kind of a niche lens. Also the 17-50 is better for videos imo. So anyone wondering over what to buy? Definitely grab that 17-50 for an all round use, unless you wanna get the absolute best results on your pre-wedding or long exposure landscape photography with no video production requirements. 18-35 is a very good but very limited lens. Definitely worth the money if you know what you're doing.

I bought the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and tried it out on my Nikon DX DSLR. I found this lens had a back focusing problem. You need a Sigma Focusing Dock to adjust it. I returned the lens because of this. I pursued the Sigma 17-50 2.8. It costed 3 times less than the 18-35 1.8. I used the Lens Adjust in the Nikon's menu to adjust this lens to perfect it's focusing point. The lens is very sharp indeed. It stays on my camera all the time for general everyday shootings.

Does the sigma 17-50 f2.8 have a constant aperture?

What will be your lens recommendation for buildings (Churches) in Travel photography ?

Why did you use a green screen ?

I understand what you are saying, but I bought the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 for astrophotography, which needs good light-gathering for the 500 rule. An f1.8 aperture gives me an incredibly long exposure and still maintain stars as points of light, rather than trails. For landscape photography, it sits well between my Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 and Sigma 24-105mm f4, but, I will be using f816, so the fast f1.8 will be of little value where I am looking for front to back sharpness. Personally, for someone who is looking for a range extending from 10mm to 300mm, this Sigma 18-35mm is a very good fill-in..

I would agree with you.

For Real State pictures what lens could be better, bet Sigma 18-35 / 17-50 or Nikon 18-140? Thanks

Thanks!!! AWESOME!!!

Many People also have the 50mm 1.8; we should take this in conclusion too. With this we have more or less the same range at a constant aperture of 1.8 if we bring it together with the sigma in our bag. Never the less i tested none of the two lenses (18-35/17-50)

Love your analysis. I’ve been debating between these two, but the Sigma 18-35 is more than double the 17-50

Hello my friends Can you help me? What? You advise me I work in wedding photography and in closed halls Do you? The 18-35 sigma lens is suitable for me Canon 80D camera used Accompanied by ronin Thank you

So as I said earlier I got a used Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for 150$ and then I spent 2 days shooting similar kind of images in good and bad lighting conditions with the 17-50 and 18-35. To be honest the only difference I have felt so far is the build-quality (which is exceptional for 18-35). The 17-50 has a decent build quality but the lack of internal focussing is a bit bothersome in the beginning when you keep touching the focus ring while auto-focussing. Back to the picture comparison: In good lighting conditions there is no difference between the lenses (which is generally the case with all lenses). Although in my opinion a f3.2 and above is a sweet spot for the 17-50 (the 18-35 is sharp everywhere). However things change in low-light (I was shooting in my living room with decent incandescent light). The main thing which makes the difference here is the OS on the 17-50. So the 18-35 at f1.8 yo have to shoot at 1/50 (which is the least for steady shots at 35 mm) but for the 17-50 at f2.8-3.3 because of the OS you can easily shoot at 1/30 even at 1/10 and get pretty sharp photos (equal to the 18-35). Plus the 50mm extra range for the 17-50 and we have a winner for general amateur photographers and enthusiasts like us (professionals still get the 18-35 and a 50 and blah blah because that's there life). I would say get the 17-50 and then get a Tamron 60mm f2.0 macro (not the usual 50mm f1.8) so you can shoot and explore macro and have a great portrait lens too. @Ayan Jana

Personally, I want to vlog. I don't want much distortions if I'm doing night videos either. I'd get the Sigma 18-35mm for it's aperture (I'm brand new to cameras in general, so idk how bad an f/2.8 would be. However, I did tons of research on RU-vid, and decided to stick to the Canon 90D and Sigma 18-35mm for a start (I got enough muscle to carry that!)), and save up for a 50-100mm f/1.8 for B Rolls and Portrait shots in the future.

If you're shooting mostly hand-held, then get 17-50, becauce of the VR/IS. If the sharpness is the at-most importance for you, then 18-35 (but you'll need higher shutter speeds and/or tripod-monopod). With your budget, I'd go for used 17-50 f2.8 + 35 or 50 f1.8... And see how non IS f1.8 handles vs f2.8 IS... and later decide to stick with this choice or sell both and get 18-35... regards

Artoftheimage, you should block the user "U R NOT ME". He is rude and unhelpful. Every comment he makes is an insult to the person he's responding to. It's quite childish.

great video.

Did you really read that one-whole minute-question that just happened to be filled with compliments about you?

I'm considering trading my 17-50 f2.8 + 50mm 1.8 STM + Cash (if ever) to a 18-35 1.8 but after watching this I might keep it!

I have the 35 f 1.8 and just bought a sigma 17-50 2.8. I have a Nikon d3200 since dec2014 and now I'm thinking to upgrade my body, what do you think about the d7500?

I have the Sigma 18-35 1.8 for the sony A mount and is being used on a Sony A6300 with an LA-EA3 Sony adapter. I use a hand held gimbal and that is a fantastic stabilization that makes for great photos and videos. I prefer the 18-35 because it is sharp. It is a professional style lens. The 1.8 is a huuuuge advantage over the 2.8 of the 17-50. I've owned both and found the 17-50 is a fine lens.....but the 18-35 is a GREAT lens. It is sharper than the 17-50. Noticeably so past 2.0. Yes, the range is limited with the 18-35....but with the 1.5 factor, the range goes to 27 to 52.5 . The Fstop also goes to 2.7 on the 18-35. The Fstop on the 17-50 goes to 4.2. That pretty much covers my prime lens needs at the wide open end. And with the 2 power magnification onboard the Sony A6300, I can go to 54MM to 105MM with no degradation of image quality. So with the Sony A6300, the range is 27mm to 105MM. So to say that the 17-50 is a better choice, may or may not be correct. A faster lens like 1.8 allows for faster exposure which allows for steadier photos. If you have a Sony A6300, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is the one to beat.

I have a 50mm f/1.8 prime, 24mm f/2.8 prime, and old kit, EF-S 18-55mm IS II lens. I'm debating between the 17-50mm 2.8 and the 18-35mm 1.8. I wanted to go for the 18-35 but it does cost a pretty penny. I am no professional by any means, just a hobbyist/family/landscape photographer. I agree with you saying that getting the 17-50mm + (some prime) like the 28mm 1.8 prime would be just as effective than just getting the 18-35. I'm starting to think I could probably sell my 24mm prime and 18-55mm if I were to get the 17-50 lens.

I have a Canon Rebel T7i, I take pictures indoors a lot and I’m not allowed to use flash. I have the Sigma 17-50mm which is sharp when in well lit rooms. But in some rooms, Not having enough light without cranking up the ISO is a major problem. Anything less than F/1.8 requires some serious work, effort, and adjustments. I’ve got my Eyes on a Sigma 18-35mm and a 35mm F/1.4. God said, “Let there be light,”

I'm a Video guy and I was really keen to get the Sigma 18-35mm, but chose to get the 17-50mm instead. I really love the lens, the Image Stabilisation is really good and i'm able to carry it around in a portable setup, it's my first constant aperture lens and it has helped a great deal for me to capture wedding footage quickly. If you have an APS-c sized sensor, it also does pretty well in low-light. I think it might be worth getting the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 as another lens to compliment the 17-50 if you want an f1.8 Constant, but like many of us out there, it's worth holding back until you're ready to invest in high-end glass like that.

1.8 for 27-40mm range is only relevant in low light, because 1.8 will make the Bokeh too blurry, we use wide angle lens to capture environment around the subject, so making it completely invisible will defeat the purpose of wide angle. If you are shooting video, you can get away with one lens 17-50/2.8, but with 18-35 mm, you will need one more lens. 17-50 is more versatile

what about sigma 17-70 (contemporary version) compaired to 17-50 f2.8? Thanks for your answer

The 18-35 lacks image stabilization while the 17-50 has it (claimed to have 4 stops worth of OS). Having IS will help when doing street photography, I think (you still need enough shutter speed to combat subject motion, but for static subjects the IS will help in dimly lit situations). The 18-35 would be good for video if using a tripod and I think a lot of people buy it for that reason (it lets in more light and blurs the background better than the f/2.8 lens). For landscape shooting, I think they are a wash in that either would probably do just fine for that when using a tripod. Of course, having IS means you can do some handheld landscape shots too, so again the IS add some advantage.

your mic has to rotate to be in front of you.

RIP Matt .... You'll be missed

i prefer the 17-50mm for the wider angle

i paid $600 dollars for a new version of this lens(sigma 18-35f1.8) for a Nikon, they wanted $799 dollars for the sony version, what the hell is up with that?....so i applied the $200 dollars i saved to buy a nikon d3400 for $340 dollars also brand new......NO focus issues....

If I had $600 I would buy $320 sigma 17-50 f2.8 and for $280 I'd get Nikon 85mm 1.8g used. It would cover my landscape, street photography and portraits needs. You cant beat 85 for its sharpness and shallow depth of field

petition for canon to make a 17-55 2.8 ii ?

As for the streets remember that sigma 18-35 weights about 2 pounds...

Buy both, problem solved 😊

You left me in pains. 😥😪😢💔

18-35 Sigma (trust me ALOT of people have issues with it) If you CAN get a GOLDEN copy then awesome!!!! But I had 2 copies from high street stores (professional camera places) and both my copies were terrible, the auto focus was way out, and up close at 1.8 the Blacks on a test chart was horrible on both lenses it de-fused them into a horrible red & blue mush (a known problem on this lens) its such a shame cause i would of loved this 18-35 as a keeper :(

RIP

Rip

I've never done street photography, don't think I have the b#%%* for it, but I do have this lens and I've got to admit it's my favourite for landscape when using filters which are obviously used on a tripod. I also like how you can get and interesting foreground and melt the background, this is where this lens comes into its own. However, from what little I know about street photography, quick, in close, shoot and out again, this is definitely not the right lens. It's too heavy, no stabilisation and my understanding it's a job for a fixed aperture and to zoom with your legs. No disrespect to this channel but street photography is Kai's domain on DigitalRev he has shot quite a few videos using different lenses in this genre, once you get passed the laddish sense of humour he does talk sense. As I say though, no disrespect to this channel which I am subscribing to, it comes across as very unbiased and honest which for advice and reviews are the most important characteristics.

"bow-kay" hahaha

I found it depressing that you are using a green screen to hide the fact that you are actually in a small dark room and not in that villa! No offense!

For what is the 18-35mm for a perfectionist, gear acquisition syndrome? You never will need that if you have a good camera like the Nikon D7200 and not a Canon... gear up the iso problem solved!!! Learn to photograph instead to look for perfect lenses

Pardon me, but both of these lenses are Sigma's 'DC' lenses and are designed for 'Crop Sensor Cameras' and not the full frame equivalents you allude to.. You make this mistake all the time.....

You CANNOT do a lens review if you are not shooting with the lens. You do NOT know how it feels, works, sounds, etc.. That is dumb, sir.