
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' |
Sigma 17mm
![]() | IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' |
Canon 55mm
![]() | IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' |
Sigma 50mm
![]() | IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' |
Another example, in harsh lighting, wide open...
Canon 55mm
![]() | IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' |
Sigma 50mm
![]() | IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' |
Again all my thoughts and comments are posted at the above link after having used over 30 copies of the Canon and owning 2 for several years. Loved the lens, but moved to a better one with the Sigma. It's sharpness and micro-contrast is simply better, along with its CA and flare performance. Not slamming the Canon, just the facts. If the Canon were better I'd still own it.