Canon 17-85 v Sigma 17-70

I think I have a freak copy of the Sigma 17-70, but its my sharpest lens. If you look at my signature you can see that that's saying something.

I bought the 17-70 from a member named Grinchy and it is tack sharp. I love the colors and saturation most of all. I have no complaints at all with the Sigma.

I agree with Lightrules view on the pros and cons of each lens.
Canon nicer AF system and IS.
Sigma better build, faster aperture, and macro feature.

However, I would go with the Sigma for the better value, unless you really want the IS.

Medic85 wrote in post #4520379
I had the Sigma, sold it for the 17-85. I wanted the little bit of reach and the benefits of IS and USM. Both are very comperable lenses. Do a search for lightrules on pbase and see his review/comparison of the two.

Medic 85, you could have the casting vote here (Sorry for the pressure): -

I'm leaning towards the Canon, did you think you made the right decision, or did you wish you'd kept the Sigma?

Thanks Pete

Have you given any thought to the Sigma 18-200 OS instead? Lightrules gives the nod to the 18-200 over the Canon 17-85 (test). I was going to get the Canon but opted for the Sigma instead and have really enjoyed it so far.

I have had the 17-85 and it was a nice lens, but the image quality of corner areas was pretty bad at 18mm and horribly soft at about 24-35mm so I got rid of it. The AF was very fast and accurate and the stabilization worked well. But that couldn't make up for the poor image quality. I have to say that the 17-40L (my most trusted lens, a solid performer) is uncomparable to the 17-85 in image quality. I recently got the 17-70 which is a more solid performer than the 17-85 in regards to image quality, but I'm yet to test it thoroughly.

Thanks for the suggestion Andrew, but I also have the Sigma 70-300, which I'm very pleased with.

Pete

Outdoors, in decent lighting, you can't beat the 17-70 for the money. In low light or indoors the Canon is better. My Sigma's AF would tend to hunt in poor lighting.

I just sold my 17-70 for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, mainly because I wanted IS, but the 17-70 is a fantastic lens for the $.......

There are endless debates about this choice all over the internet. Both lenses are quite good. I bought the 17-85 and have been very happy with it. I would probably have been happy with the sigma, too.

I read too many reviews (and will never do that again) and it boils down to this:
- The Sigma is sharper at the wide end, the Canon is sharper at the long end
- On its very widest (17-20mm) the Canon produces more chromatic aberrations than the Sigma.
- The Canon goes both wider and longer (Canon is wider at 17mm and goes to 85 vs. 70)
- The Sigma has a faster aperture across the range.
- The Canon has Image Stabilization, the Sigma doesn't.
- The Canon has far superior autofocus, the Sigma's AF is crummy but equally fast.
- Build is very different, but quality-wise on the same level.
- The Sigma puts a slight yellow cast to images (hard to see unless you look for it).
- The Canon is more expensive, but the price came down quite a bit recently.

So with the Canon you are buying ring-USM autofocus, better manual focus and IS and 15mm and Canon.
With Sigma you're saving some cash, and you're gaining some light.

IMHO the Canon is the most versatile and therefore the winner, because that's the whole purpose of these lenses. It will get you a picture in situations where the Sigma fails. If you're on a tight budget, don't waste any more time, go straight for the Sigma and don't look back.

I've never used Sigma, but IS alone is reason enough to have Canon 17-85.
Additionally, it's quite sharp, IMO. I've had some very good results from it.

Pete Gl wrote in post #4533017
Medic 85, you could have the casting vote here (Sorry for the pressure): -

I'm leaning towards the Canon, did you think you made the right decision, or did you wish you'd kept the Sigma?

Thanks Pete

No pressure here. I'll tell you how I came to the decision to trade. Let me first say that I loved the Sigma. It's a great lens, it's built wonderfully and performs great. My reasoning for trading up was because I thought the Sigma hunted very badly in low light situations and was slow to focus. I had been using my other lens that has USM and was also using my father's 24-105 IS. I fell in love with IS and wanted the faster focusing with the USM.

It's really up to you what you want to do. You will not be disappointed with either lens. You have to decide which one works best for you. I'm happy with the 17-85 and was happy with the IQ of the Sigma. Everyone has their own reasons for the lenses they buy, you have to be the one to figure it out. I will suggest going with your gut. My initial gut feeling was on the Canon but I opted for the Sigma instead due to price alone. I don't regret owning the Sigma.

I hope that rambling helped some in your decision. Let us know what you end up getting

I have the Sigma 17-70 and its an Excellent walk around lens, feel very solid and its very Sharp.
A couple of weeks ago I was thinking that I need a new lens, after reading lots a review and looking the kind of pictures I take (Most of them my family and walks and indoors) I was searching for a lens with IS…. IS sure is great, but you can’t freeze a kid to take a picture, so I decide to get a fastest lens, I choose the Sigma 30 1.4 and you know It’s awesome!!

So if you need a Walk around lens and a Indoors lens, Get if you can, the Sigma 17-70 and the Sigma 30 1.4

Have you had any issues with the 30 front or back focusing yet?

The focus of the 30 is much more accurate than my other Non L lens (the 70-200 L is the best lens I have), there’s some times that you get a random rear o back focus, but they are the less and none of all the Keepers I get in the same event or zone I could get it without the 30.

Bottom line, the total of keepers are far far way from a couple that have miss focus, so your answer could be something like, yes I have some picture with miss focus, but at the end of the day they are not an a issue for me.

Thanks.