
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).
Jan 30, 2012 09:28 | #16 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). 5D3 | 24-105mm L | 85mm 1.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
h4ppydaze Goldmember 1,329 posts Likes: 1 Joined Oct 2011 More info | Jan 30, 2012 13:39 | #17 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
pyrojim Goldmember 1,882 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jan 2010 Location: San Jose, CA More info | the dust is NOT that big of an issue. PhaseOne H25
LOG IN TO REPLY |
shoenberg3 Senior Member 466 posts Likes: 15 Joined Mar 2011 Location: San Jose, CA More info | Jan 30, 2012 14:17 | #19 It isn't even close. The Sigmas by far. Buy prints of my photographs at Redbubble -> shoenberg3 | Redbubble
LOG IN TO REPLY |
shoenberg3 Senior Member 466 posts Likes: 15 Joined Mar 2011 Location: San Jose, CA More info | Jan 30, 2012 14:22 | #20 I would probably do this instead though: Buy prints of my photographs at Redbubble -> shoenberg3 | Redbubble
LOG IN TO REPLY |
StarTzar Senior Member ![]() 426 posts Likes: 1 Joined May 2010 Location: Gatineau QC, Canada More info | Jan 30, 2012 14:31 | #21 Option A
LOG IN TO REPLY |
highergr0und Senior Member 545 posts Joined Aug 2011 More info | Jan 30, 2012 14:53 | #22 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. T3i, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 30 1.4, 18-55 kit, 55-250, YN-565, a few books, some software, and a desire to get good.....
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Numenorean Cream of the Crop 5,013 posts Likes: 28 Joined Feb 2011 More info | Jan 30, 2012 14:55 | #23 Option B for me.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 30, 2012 15:00 | #24 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. Lake Superior and North Shore Landscape Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
K6AZ Cream of the Crop ![]() More info | Jan 30, 2012 15:07 | #25 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
shoenberg3 Senior Member 466 posts Likes: 15 Joined Mar 2011 Location: San Jose, CA More info | Jan 30, 2012 15:23 | #26 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. Buy prints of my photographs at Redbubble -> shoenberg3 | Redbubble
LOG IN TO REPLY |
K6AZ Cream of the Crop ![]() More info | Jan 30, 2012 15:51 | #27 shoenberg3 wrote in post #13795781 ![]() You should check your facts before you make claims like this. Canon: http://www.photozone.de …non_1755_28is_50d?start=1 ![]() Sigma: http://www.photozone.de …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'.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
shoenberg3 Senior Member 466 posts Likes: 15 Joined Mar 2011 Location: San Jose, CA More info | Jan 30, 2012 15:54 | #28 Review sites are not facts, but their results are "facts." Buy prints of my photographs at Redbubble -> shoenberg3 | Redbubble
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Solix Member 175 posts Joined Apr 2011 Location: SoCal (562) More info | Jan 30, 2012 16:02 | #29 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. 60D + BG-E9 | 430EXII | Sigma 30mm 1.4 | Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS | Sigma 70-200 HSM II | Fuji x100
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sirrith Cream of the Crop More info | Jan 30, 2012 16:02 | #30 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? -Tom
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 926 guests, 208 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |