I was thinking I'd get a 50mm and 85mm 1.8g pair of prime lenses, however since I have the 35mm 1.8g already it got me thinking about the 50mm. I wanted the 50 as my nifty fifty walk around (despite being on dx and despite my 35). I'm now thinking about the 17-50 sigma OS as an alternative to the 50 1.8.

I'm not sure if a 17-50 will contradict having my 16-85, or complement it. I see the 16-85 as a lens that is so good that it practically has no faults save for its aperture limitations; great for landscape shots and shooting in its aperture range. I see the 17-50 as a walk around lens that I would take if I know I want more separation in my shots, but I wouldn't favour over the 16-85 otherwise.

Anyway, does anyone actually have real life experience with he sigma 17-50 OS f2.8 lens? I've done lots of google searches, information looks positive all around, and all uploaded shots look really nice online and seem to have very very little chromatic aberration at f2.8, less so than in the more negative but still generally positive reviews.

(I basically get one lens in October on my bday and one at Christmas, the 85 1.8g is already a definite).

stop spending money

1. It's not my money when it's a present. I do intend to pick up a good functional tripod & flash before the end of the year if I don't end up getting them one way or another.

2. No

3. I've been doing a lot of shooting. I enjoy photography. My 35mm 1.8G goes to good use, my 16-85mm VR goes to good use, and my 70-300 VR goes to good use. I've probably spent on average at least an hour shooting and an hour editing every two days. I haven't posted shots I've done lately.
3. a. It would be a crime not to pick up the 85mm 1.8G, given its performance and how often I'd use it ;O. The 17-50 Sigma looks like it might fit my needs as well, in the stead of a 50mm 1.8G. Again, I absolutely know these would have a use for me... but just because they fit into the type of photography I'm doing right now doesn't mean I'm going to go out and get them immediately, or consider not getting them. Hence, the thread.

4. If I was really spending money, I'd have a 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, and a D800... *that* would be stupid. None of my purchases so far have been mistakes... I'm having a lot of fun. I've got lots of family shots I've got set up to do prints of, and I'm going to continue doing this stuff.

5. I enjoy learning about photography gear, regardless of whether I'm going to own the gear or not. I've done lots of research about all types of lenses that I won't ever pick up (Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Sony, Pentax). I enjoy knowing about these things. If a lens is relative to my interests and a possible purchase, I'm definitely a little more interested in learning about it.

6. I appreciate the concern. I know money can be easily wasted. I know I could've spent my money differently, and I can always approach photography from different and cheaper angles. Were I to do this over again, the only lens I might shift my choice on would be my walk-around; I was originally told on various forums that for a walk-around I needed range, but I think aperture is really more important than range.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Aug 20 2013 09:25pm

buy it, gonna buy it too, it's amazing for that price..

Decided against it... Took a look at the 17-55, thought about it, and again I decided against it (I would get it in a heartbeat if FX didn't exist or if it translated over to FX properly)... Took a look at the 24-70, and that's just too big and expensive (focal range is fine on DX).

So I think I'll stick to shooting primes at 35mm+. Still considering the 50mm 1.8G, but the 85mm 1.8G is a definite eventually.

Wallet is closed for now while I think things over for the next couple months and shoot more.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Aug 25 2013 05:53pm