2 Sigmas or 1 Canon?

K6AZ wrote in post #13795965
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.

Again, my take on these 2 lenses.

Lenstip review and comments on the two lenses in question and conclusion.

And a few center shots between my former 17-55 and my current 17-50, all f2.8:

Canon 17mm

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

shoenberg3 wrote in post #13795984
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.

Sorry, but no matter what you call it that site and anything on it is not a fact.

You even conceded the same issue most of these third party f/2.8 zooms have, being soft wide open. What's the point of buying a f/2.8 lens if it's soft wide open? This is the same argument when it comes to FF, there have been endless threads about how the Tamron 28-75 is just as good as the Canon 24-70/28-70.

The bottom line is that in user reviews the Canon 17-55 rates significantly higher than the Sigma 17-50. It's nearly a full point higher over on FM on a scale of 1-10.

Ridiculous. The numbers from lenstip and PZ are both FACTS. They are not conclusions about the lenses, but they are nonetheless facts, unless they are flat out lying about their numbers (very unlikely).
They are much more objective than user anecdotes based on a single copy of the lenses. Plus, there are previous users of these two lenses who are claiming the exact opposite of what you are saying on this very thread. So on neither counts (user anecdote and tests by reviewers) do you have an edge.

FM reviews are likewise very unreliable: a single bad experience (a bad copy) could really bring down the rating. Just for illustration, a lens with ratings of 9 9 9 9 9 and 2 would have a lower rating than that with 8 8 8 8 8 8 .

shoenberg3 wrote in post #13795439
I would probably do this instead though:

SIgma 10-22, Sigma 24-70.

I think I'd go 8-16mm HSM and 17-50mm OS HSM.

That is another option that would be interesting. 8mm rectilinear, that is just sick wide, even on crop..

K6AZ wrote in post #13796059
Sorry, but no matter what you call it that site and anything on it is not a fact.

You even conceded the same issue most of these third party f/2.8 zooms have, being soft wide open. What's the point of buying a f/2.8 lens if it's soft wide open? This is the same argument when it comes to FF, there have been endless threads about how the Tamron 28-75 is just as good as the Canon 24-70/28-70.

The bottom line is that in user reviews the Canon 17-55 rates significantly higher than the Sigma 17-50. It's nearly a full point higher over on FM on a scale of 1-10.

You seem to have conveniently ignored both my and Lightrules' posts.

Tony-S wrote in post #13796131
I think I'd go 8-16mm HSM and 17-50mm OS HSM.

Ah, yes. Thought about it, but that gets me up to around $1400. My $1100 is already pushing it.

....but haven't ruled it out....

Sirrith wrote in post #13796142
You seem to have conveniently ignored both my and Lightrule's posts.

Don't you know? Sometimes facts are stupid things.

nccb wrote in post #13796189
Ah, yes. Thought about it, but that gets me up to around $1400. My $1100 is already pushing it.

....but haven't ruled it out....

I'd say it'd be worth that extra $300. I have the full-frame equivalents, 12-24mm HSM and 24-70mm HSM (though no OS).

Tony-S wrote in post #13796203
Don't you know? Sometimes facts are stupid things.

Ah, but stupid doesn't mean wrong

nccb wrote in post #13796189
Ah, yes. Thought about it, but that gets me up to around $1400. My $1100 is already pushing it.

....but haven't ruled it out....

One thing to consider with the 8-16 is the difficulty of using filters with it if you intend to do landscape photography or use a CPL.

Sirrith wrote in post #13796142
You seem to have conveniently ignored both my and Lightrules' posts.

I've read the posts here. Rather than going back and forth how about we post wide open f/2.8 shots with the EXIF intact?

Here are shots from the JPGs generated from the 7D. I've only resized the first one and cropped the second one in Irfanview.

First, the entire frame @ 55mm:

Hold on let me grab some popcorn....

K6AZ wrote in post #13796312
I've read the posts here. Rather than going back and forth how about we post wide open f/2.8 shots with the EXIF intact?

I must admit I'm rather confused. If you did indeed read the posts, you'll know I don't have either of those lenses, and you'll have seen the images with EXIF intact posted by Lightrules, so what exactly are you wanting?

Sirrith wrote in post #13796362
I must admit I'm rather confused. If you did indeed read the posts, you'll know I don't have either of those lenses, and you'll have seen the images with EXIF intact posted by Lightrules, so what exactly are you wanting?

I'd like to see more examples, especially shot with the 7D. His shots with the 17-55 seem to be very soft for that lens, at least compared to the three different copies I've used.

With the 30mm f1.4 in the mix, do you really need an f2.8 zoom around it? How about a 15-85?