2 Sigmas or 1 Canon?

BigBadWolfie wrote in post #13793513
The curent relatively small price difference between the Sigma UWA and the Canon UWA doesn't justify going with the Sigma UWA IMO.

The Sigma 10-20mm is $480. The Canon 10-22mm is $725. $250 difference isn't that small (to me).

Option A all day if your budget is set. There is no 'real' functional difference between the 17-55 and Sigma 17-50. Yes, I know they perform differently, but photography doesn't tend to hinge on small differences in image quality. The Sigma is great, focus is fast and spot-on, and in my experience the Canon 17-55 (though excellent) is not worth paying double the price for. A hundred more? Maybe. But if this is your budget and buying the Sigma will give you the funds for a 10-20, go for it. The 10-20 is a fantastic lens and I'd take the added versatility over having 'Canon' brand stuff in this situation.

the dust is NOT that big of an issue.


there are a LOT of gear snobs on here. too many infact, and i feel that they artificially inflate a lot of.... we will call the prices 'data'

they artificially inflate the data.

someone is going to say at some point that the difference between the 17-55 and the 24-70(on a full frame) is the depth of field. for the overlapping focal lengths(thats 24-55), at identical distances... the amount of out of focus area is the same...


for identically framed scenes, much much different.

Ohh, and I personally hate(yes hate, its a strong word) the EFS system, because Nikon AND sony BOTH allow their cropped sensor lenses to mount to their PROFESSIONAL and full frame cameras.

with that said,


i love the 17-55mm IS USM.

it simply rocks.

It isn't even close. The Sigmas by far.

I would probably do this instead though:

SIgma 10-22, Sigma 24-70.

Option A

I'm going option A myself..... I asked myself if I would like just the canon 17-55 and 10-22 or if I would rather have the sigma 10-20, the sigma 17-50, and another lens, which will most likely be the 30 1.4. After those 3, I can start saving for a replacement for my 55-250.

Option B for me.

Dust? I've had mine for years and there is no dust issue. Even if you got a few bits of dust in yours...it won't affect IQ.

Id go the sigma route here - Ive heard nothing but high praise for the Sig 17-50 OS. One would have to think having a mid range zoom AND UWA would be the far more flexible choice with very little, if any, sacrifice in IQ.

Sirrith wrote in post #13792992
Yes there is, the sigma 17-50
Its better in the centre frame, while the canon is better at the edges.


I'd go option A.

Yeah, and I'm the Easter Bunny.

Funny it seems to be the owners of the 17-50 claiming this. IME the 17-55 is clearly superior across the entire frame.

K6AZ wrote in post #13795692
Yeah, and I'm the Easter Bunny.

Funny it seems to be the owners of the 17-50 claiming this. IME the 17-55 is clearly superior across the entire frame.

You should check your facts before you make claims like this.

Canon: http://www.photozone.d​e …non_1755_28is_5​0d?start=1


Sigma: http://www.photozone.d​e …31-sigma1750f28os?start=1

Canon seems to outperform the sigma in the corners at close to wide open, but otherwise, SIgma pretty much betters the canon. That center sharpness is quite incredible on the Sigma. Overall it is a wash but I would choose the sigma for the lower price and lower weight.

shoenberg3 wrote in post #13795781
You should check your facts before you make claims like this.

Canon: http://www.photozone.d​e …non_1755_28is_5​0d?start=1


Sigma: http://www.photozone.d​e …31-sigma1750f28os?start=1

Canon seems to outperform the sigma in the corners at close to wide open, but otherwise, SIgma pretty much betters the canon. That center sharpness is quite incredible on the Sigma. Overall it is a wash but I would choose the sigma for the lower price and lower weight.

Sorry, I don't put much credence in that site. I'm not going to go off topic and explain why here but anyone that cares to can do a little digging. Review sites are not 'facts'.

By the way, I'm far from a Sigma basher. I own five Sigma lenses. But the 17-50 in the real world does not outperform the 17-55. A friend of mine owns one and it is not a bad lens but head to head with the 17-55 on a 7D body it was pretty clear the 17-55 was better particularly wide open.

Review sites are not facts, but their results are "facts."

Facts does not equate to conclusions, of course, but I would place more credence on these controlled tests rather purely anecdotal accounts.

Really? As someone who switched over, I've found that the Sigma is sharper wide open. I also felt that the 17-50's colors and contrast were notably better SOOC and that the bokeh was smoother.

K6AZ wrote in post #13795692
Yeah, and I'm the Easter Bunny.

Funny it seems to be the owners of the 17-50 claiming this. IME the 17-55 is clearly superior across the entire frame.

Funny, I'm not a 17-50 owner. It also seems to be the owners of the 17-55 who refuse to believe that the sigma can be better. Cognitive dissonance maybe?

This guy however, is a 17-50 owner, and an ex-17-55 owner:
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11535171&po​stcount=38