Canon 17-85 vs Sigma 17-70

[ruksak]

Forget the price - which simply gives the better results?

If people have samples to post/compare please do.

Many thanks

[farrukh]

Sigma is better quality lens.
Canon is all about IS

[pup]

i rented the 17-85 over easter weekend and liked it

[benca1]

Forget the price - which simply gives the better results?

If people have samples to post/compare please do.

Many thanks

Canon is mechanically superior, Siggie is optically superior.

There are outstanding reviews and test shots all over the web.

My personal view: when in doubt decide on the optics. That the siggie is 2/3s the price is pretty nice too.

[Neilyb]

Canon is great when used within it's best range, 40ish-85 mm....sharp when used at this range! from 17-39ish you get alot of CA and fringing, alot of distortion at 17mm and average edge sharpness!

Heres one I did at 85mm: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=163688
IS is a great help. Remember that the sigi only has a 2.8 opening for the first few mm....so the canon is only half a stop behind it at any time plus it has IS.

[forsakenme720]

The Sigma is better in every aspect: build quality, IQ, CA, vignetting, distortions, etc. The only advantage the Canon has is IS.

[Mr. Clean]

I think ultimately people who choose either lens are very happy with their choice! Both great lenses. A good review can be found here:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/17701785

[Seefutlung]

Gotta tell you that no "serious" photog uses the 17-85. Too much distortion on both ends and too soft on the wide. This doesn't make it a bad lens for the average Joe. It was a great range, and if you're not too particular about IQ ... then it is a great lens. The fact that you're asking about this lens ... tends to make me think that you are not into professional quality images and tend to print 6x4s. So maybe the Canon would be right for you .. the IS is a handy tool to have.

[benca1]

I think ultimately people who choose either lens are very happy with their choice! Both great lenses. A good review can be found here:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/17701785

That's true. But don't take the fun away from mocking (rich) canon fan boys! Sigma: For the working people. :p

I'm no commie nevertheless.

[ScottE]

That's true. But don't take the fun away from mocking (rich) canon fan boys! Sigma: For the working people. :p

I'm no commie nevertheless.
Maybe you're no commie, but you're not toeing the Party line either. I'm surprised none of the "L"omists on this lists have not castigated you for not expounding the basic principal of lens politics. "If it does not have an "L" in the name, it is not socialy acceptable."

[Mr. Clean]

Gotta tell you that no "serious" photog uses the 17-85. Too much distortion on both ends and too soft on the wide. This doesn't make it a bad lens for the average Joe. It was a great range, and if you're not too particular about IQ ... then it is a great lens. The fact that you're asking about this lens ... tends to make me think that you are not into professional quality images and tend to print 6x4s. So maybe the Canon would be right for you .. the IS is a handy tool to have.
Well that's just an a**load of assumptions. A tad on the rude side too eh?
*edit*
Sharpness, does not a make someone a professional.

[Behzad]

I don't know about sigma, but I had the 17-85 and didn't like the IQ at all, so I exchaged it for 24-105 L so I can "socialize"

[ruksak]

Gotta tell you that no "serious" photog uses the 17-85. Too much distortion on both ends and too soft on the wide. This doesn't make it a bad lens for the average Joe. It was a great range, and if you're not too particular about IQ ... then it is a great lens. The fact that you're asking about this lens ... tends to make me think that you are not into professional quality images and tend to print 6x4s. So maybe the Canon would be right for you .. the IS is a handy tool to have.

Thanks for this - I'm pretty much set on the Sigma now I think as I want something with decent results at the wider end.

I imagine everyone is as particular as they can be about IQ, but I'm also particular about not getting divorced too! Despite my original question money is a factor past the $700 mark.

Anyway, thanks to all reponses - damn this forum is a drug!

[forsakenme720]

Gotta tell you that no "serious" photog uses the 17-85. Too much distortion on both ends and too soft on the wide. This doesn't make it a bad lens for the average Joe. It was a great range, and if you're not too particular about IQ ... then it is a great lens. The fact that you're asking about this lens ... tends to make me think that you are not into professional quality images and tend to print 6x4s. So maybe the Canon would be right for you .. the IS is a handy tool to have.

You could have the kit lens as your only lens and still be a "serious" photographer.

[benca1]

Maybe you're no commie, but you're not toeing the Party line either. I'm surprised none of the "L"omists on this lists have not castigated you for not expounding the basic principal of lens politics. "If it does not have an "L" in the name, it is not socialy acceptable."

It always cracks me up when I see someone new, on a budget to, ask for advice for what to get beyond the kit lens and the reply is always, "get the 17-40L!" Or something similar... :lol:

I can't imagine only having use of 23 mm of focal length and all of it wide angle. Obviously the 50mm would be a decent suggestion, cheap, outstanding performance, or some other prime - but nooooo it's not an L! Okay, my rant is done. ;)

[alfa1six4]

Gotta tell you that no "serious" photog uses the 17-85. Too much distortion on both ends and too soft on the wide. This doesn't make it a bad lens for the average Joe. It was a great range, and if you're not too particular about IQ ... then it is a great lens. The fact that you're asking about this lens ... tends to make me think that you are not into professional quality images and tend to print 6x4s. So maybe the Canon would be right for you .. the IS is a handy tool to have.

whatever.....

[electrict]

Gotta tell you that no "serious" photog uses the 17-85. Too much distortion on both ends and too soft on the wide. This doesn't make it a bad lens for the average Joe. It was a great range, and if you're not too particular about IQ ... then it is a great lens. The fact that you're asking about this lens ... tends to make me think that you are not into professional quality images and tend to print 6x4s. So maybe the Canon would be right for you .. the IS is a handy tool to have.
Wow

[Nice Glass]

I need to throw mine away so I can be a "serious" photographer.

[Redstorm]

I need to throw mine away so I can be a "serious" photographer.

Tell me where and when so that I can pick it up. :lol::lol:

[stangster]

Tell me where and when so that I can pick it up. :lol::lol:

lol

[Lightstream]

Tell me where and when so that I can pick it up. :lol::lol:
Yeah but if you picked it up, you would instantly stop becoming a 'serious' photographer too! :D:lol: Beware!! :lol: