Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 15 Mar 2013 (Friday) 15:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lens recommendation, $1000 Budget

 
UserM4
Member
Avatar
173 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2010
     
Mar 16, 2013 02:17 |  #16

+1 for 17-55 and a flash.


6D ☺ G7 X Mark II ☺ SL1 ☺ EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM ☺ EF 28 f/2.8 IS ☺ EF 85 f/1.8 ☺ Rokinon 8 f/3.5 ☺ EF 24-105 f/4L IS ☺ EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS ☺ EF 50 f/1.8 STM ☺ EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 34
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 16, 2013 02:48 |  #17

A comparison between the Canon and the Sigma.
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/1755isv1750o​s (external link)

Personally I don't see much reason for going with the Canon.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skanter
Senior Member
271 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Mar 16, 2013 02:53 |  #18

This comparison has been discussed ad nauseum. The Sigma is a good lens for the money, but is not as sharp in borders as the 17-55, has slower AF, not FTM, and poor quality control in general. If you do buy one, make sure its a vendor that will take it back. I'd rather buy a used Canon 17-55 then a new Sigma, and thats what I did. YMMV




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 34
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 16, 2013 03:27 |  #19

skanter wrote in post #15720564 (external link)
This comparison has been discussed ad nauseum. The Sigma is a good lens for the money, but is not as sharp in borders as the 17-55, has slower AF, not FTM, and poor quality control in general. If you do buy one, make sure its a vendor that will take it back. I'd rather buy a used Canon 17-55 then a new Sigma, and thats what I did. YMMV

Indeed, which is why I said personally. I own both Canon and Sigma lenses, I always buy what I perceive as the best value for money, taking into account quality control and all that. And in this case, I would choose the Sigma in a heartbeat since QC is not an issue with this lens.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skanter
Senior Member
271 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Mar 16, 2013 03:33 |  #20

Sirrith wrote in post #15720589 (external link)
Indeed, which is why I said personally. I own both Canon and Sigma lenses, I always buy what I perceive as the best value for money, taking into account quality control and all that. And in this case, I would choose the Sigma in a heartbeat since QC is not an issue with this lens.

QC is an issue with Sigma, not any lens in particular. I have owned many Sigma lenses, and have had to return a majority of them. I have also seen huge differences between different copies.

Value is personal, thats why I said YMMV. I've seen many arguments on forums from owners of lenses putting down other lenses to justify their own purchase decisions. Its pretty silly.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NemethR
Senior Member
Avatar
847 posts
Likes: 130
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Pécs, Hungary
     
Mar 16, 2013 03:44 |  #21

Get the Canon EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, its a great lens, might be, it does not fit the $1000 category, but it is not much more, and worth every penny.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx (external link)

Its around $1150 on the web.


Roland | Hobbyst Photographer
Nikon D850 | Nikon 85mm f/1.8G

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 34
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 16, 2013 04:16 |  #22

skanter wrote in post #15720594 (external link)
QC is an issue with Sigma, not any lens in particular. I have owned many Sigma lenses, and have had to return a majority of them. I have also seen huge differences between different copies.

Value is personal, thats why I said YMMV. I've seen many arguments on forums from owners of lenses putting down other lenses to justify their own purchase decisions. Its pretty silly.

And I have used and owned many Sigma lenses and not had a single issue with any of them, whereas my only lens needing service under warranty for a defect was a Canon.

I agree that is silly. It is also pretty silly to base assessment of an entire company on one's own experiences. I agree that Sigma does have more QC issues on some lenses than Canon, especially fast primes. However, I do not agree that all their lenses have a greater incidence of issues than Canon.

However, it is pointless for either of us to continue this debate as neither of us has meaningful data. Your experience tells you something, mine tells me something else.

I simply posted my opinion and a link to a test where a user has tested more of the two pertinent lenses than both of us combined and shared his conclusion.

Now I am done with this debate as it is doing nothing but derailing the thread.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,258 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 3388
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Mar 16, 2013 10:28 |  #23

You can get a used 17-55 for under 800 and a used 430 ex ii for under 200. That's what I would do if I had $1000.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jkbeats
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
152 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Mar 16, 2013 12:48 |  #24

Thank you everyone for the suggestions and help. Now I'm just stuck on the sigma and canon 17-55. I can stretch it to the canon and I've checked out a lot of the reviews and everything. Kind of thinking the canon will be a better investment. I know it's not the lens that takes the best picture but its me but I know it would help me better


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2072
Joined Aug 2012
     
Mar 16, 2013 12:52 |  #25

jkbeats wrote in post #15721538 (external link)
Thank you everyone for the suggestions and help. Now I'm just stuck on the sigma and canon 17-55. I can stretch it to the canon and I've checked out a lot of the reviews and everything. Kind of thinking the canon will be a better investment. I know it's not the lens that takes the best picture but its me but I know it would help me better

I'd rather wait a month if I have to, save another hundred or two and get a 17-55. It also has great resale value if you ever decide to upgrade. Like others have mentioned, nothing compares to this lens, not even Canon's ER lineup has an answer to the versatility of the 17-55. Its tack sharp across the frame and has amazing IQ/focus.

Good luck with your decision.


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skanter
Senior Member
271 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Mar 16, 2013 12:56 |  #26

Sirrith wrote in post #15720628 (external link)
And I have used and owned many Sigma lenses and not had a single issue with any of them, whereas my only lens needing service under warranty for a defect was a Canon.

I agree that is silly. It is also pretty silly to base assessment of an entire company on one's own experiences. I agree that Sigma does have more QC issues on some lenses than Canon, especially fast primes. However, I do not agree that all their lenses have a greater incidence of issues than Canon.

However, it is pointless for either of us to continue this debate as neither of us has meaningful data. Your experience tells you something, mine tells me something else.

I simply posted my opinion and a link to a test where a user has tested more of the two pertinent lenses than both of us combined and shared his conclusion.

Now I am done with this debate as it is doing nothing but derailing the thread.

I disagree that " it is silly to base assessment of a whole company on one's own experience". One's own experience is pretty important in life, and is often how we form opinions. My own experience is more relevant to me than one other guy who posts some pics on a website. Besides that, I was under the impression that it was common knowledge that Sigma has problems with quality control.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
12Rock
Senior Member
619 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Feb 2010
     
Mar 16, 2013 12:59 |  #27

grab the canon 17-55 / 2.8 -refurbished from canon prob around 850 can not go wrong they come in mint condition




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jkbeats
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
152 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Mar 16, 2013 22:11 |  #28

Alright so it's going to be either the sigma 17-50 or the canon 17-55. It's the damn price difference that's getting to me but then I keep reading reviews on the sigma and seeing some problems about calibration or other things. Why is it so hard to choose a lens lol


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 34
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 16, 2013 22:26 |  #29

If you do end up buying a used Canon 17-55, make sure its not the one of the older ones. They had problems with the IS system failing.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Judsonzhao
Goldmember
Avatar
1,198 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Mar 16, 2013 22:38 |  #30

Well.. the thread has gone into another topic I think.
I'd like to say you can't go wrong with 17-55 if you really want standard zoom, otherwise I will go Tamron over Sigma.

But seriously, put your money on a 24 or 35 prime will be a nice choice.


Fly me away.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,572 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lens recommendation, $1000 Budget
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Xtonys2018
766 guests, 398 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.