My Canon 17-55 or new Sigma 18-35 1.8?

[Owenmorris]

Hello,

I've been using my Canon 17-55 2.8 lens very happily for a few months now on my 60D.

But I have had my head turned by all the reviews of the new Sigma 18-35 1.8.

I've been looking through all my photos and I am very much mostly using the 17-55 in the 17-35 focal range. It is extremely rare that I take any photos on a longer focal range.

Would I....should I .....be seriously thinking of changing my 17-55 for this new Sigma 18-35.

I was thinking that if I did, I could maybe add the Canon prime 50mm 1.4 or the Canon 60mm 2.8

Please, if anyone out there has advice they could give me that would be very much appreciated.

[ScottyP]

How much of that time are you shooting at 2.8 and wishing you had a narrower DOF?

[Owenmorris]

Re if I'm shooting a lot at 2.8 with my 17-55 and wanting narrower DOF....then, actually yes.

90% of my photos are indoor portraits......boudoir type pics.....

I DO like the focusing quickness and overall sharpness of the 17-55.........but I think I'm missing something.

So my immediate options are.......: sell the 17-55 and get the Sigma 18-35. I am very interested in this lens on my 60D.

Or:......wait a little while and get a 6D....probably with the kit 24-105.....though I'm not convinced how much better overall this will be than my 60D with the 17-55.

But if i get the 6D.....at least then it will lead me into FF and the lens possibiliies therefore.

I'm still thinking of the Sigma 18-35 though.......with a canon 50mm 1.4

Any thoughts?

[ScottyP]

Here is a depth of field calculator. At 35mm you get a much deeper DOF than with a more telephoto lens.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm

At a distance of 10 feet at 35mm, using f/1.8 aperture, your depth of field in focus would be 1.78 feet. Is that enough for what you do? If you shoot the same shot at f/2.8 with your 17-55 you get a depth of 2.81 feet that is in focus.

I have never shot boudoir, but I believe you need to get full head-to-toe framing in some of the shots? Maybe 35mm is good for that then, as compared to a longer "portrait" length, like 50mm (80mm equivalent on your crop). I do think you'd need to pick up a 50mm or 60mm for the tighter head-and-shoulders shots if you dump the 17-55. You'd get ugly big noses and foreheads shooting that close with a 35mm lens.

But of course that 18-35 is wasted glass if you do go full frame. That is a big variable. But then your 17-55 would also be useless on ff, so are you really hurting anything by switching? Hmmmm.

[AzSTMPR]

I am in the semi- same boat as you. I have a 60D but I have the EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 lens. I've been reading reviews and watching videos of the EF-S 17-55 IS USM and the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and I just pulled the trigger on getting the Sigma. It hasnt come in yet but I think that it will be awesome! I also have a 50 1.8 MK1 and 55-250 3.5-5.6 II so I kind of know how it feels to shoot at 1.8 and I gotta say its amazing. I'm not a fan of flash so the 1.8 is really great. If youre planning on going FF then I guess you wouldnt need the Sigma as it'll just be money wasted.  If you stick to the 60D then maybe going Sigma might be a good move. Good Luck!