Canon VS Sigma: 17-55 2.8

to take on a trip to Disney over the 24-105....

Looking at low light situations at night so 2.8 > 4...

IQ
PRICE
HOOD & CASE included on sigma

Fight!!!

The canon wins on AF speed and having FTM. And better edge sharpness. The sigma wins in everything else pretty much, that includes centre sharpness.

IQ:

Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM Photo Samples

Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX Photo Samples

the Canon doesnt include a hood

SouthFlorida_Tron wrote in post #13146011
to take on a trip to Disney over the 24-105....

Looking at low light situations at night so 2.8 > 4...

IQ
PRICE
HOOD & CASE included on sigma

Fight!!!

I picked the Sigma 17-50mm EX over the Canon. With that said, I just sold my Sigma to another member as it wasn't getting enough use over my 24-105... True f/4 isnt made for low light, but I found neither was f/2.8, at least I was still reaching for my 24-105mm and my 430ex II flash 95% of the time. Low light you need either flash or a fast prime.

Don't get me wrong, I did like the Sigma very much and it is a nice lens for the money, but I don't think I ever picked it over the 24-105mm. I found the 24-105mm to have a more usable range and the sharpess was just better at f/4 and beyond... the AF was also much quicker and more consistent.

Bahhhh u make comments like that confuse me.....

Well... Maybe I could go with the 24-105 as i originally wanted and throw on the 50 1.4 at night time? Lol

Or get the 24-105 and then a wider prime as well.... Like a 35 F/2

SouthFlorida_Tron wrote in post #13146221
Bahhhh u make comments like that confuse me.....

Well... Maybe I could go with the 24-105 as i originally wanted and throw on the 50 1.4 at night time? Lol

Or get the 24-105 and then a wider prime as well.... Like a 35 F/2

Or the Sigma 30mm 1.4.....

I picked the Sigma 17-50 since it's half the price of the Canon with better build quality, a hood, and a 4x longer warranty. The image quality on the Sigma is at least as good as the Canon, many seem to prefer it as it has better center sharpness and creates warmer colors. The Canon lens really only has one advantage as far as I'm concerned and that's full time manual focus, which is pretty much a gimmick anyway; it saves you all of a half second flipping the AF/MF switch.

For almost $1200 the Canon lens is absurd. For $650 the Sigma is amazing. IMO, of course.

PS -- Also, the Canon lens is gigantic compared to the Sigma.

Im tossing the idea of either the 17-50 2.8 OS from sigma due to price, case, & hood...

or the 24-105 + a 30mm prime for nighttime... im thinking my 50 will be too long for most shots.

SouthFlorida_Tron wrote in post #13147041
Im tossing the idea of either the 17-50 2.8 OS from sigma due to price, case, & hood...

or the 24-105 + a 30mm prime for nighttime... im thinking my 50 will be too long for most shots.

This. At least that is what I would go with.

As for FTM and not. Having used lenses that have it and not. There are times when not having it can cause you to miss the shot. Sure that it only takes a switch. But sometimes using that switch means you have to look away from the subject, look at the camera, flip the switch, then look again at the subject and then refocus. Instead of auto AF then quickly adjust as needed. I never wished I didn't have FTM focus, but when I shot with my Sigma 17-50mm I always wished I did have it... Just another thought.

SouthFlorida_Tron wrote in post #13147041
Im tossing the idea of either the 17-50 2.8 OS from sigma due to price, case, & hood...

or the 24-105 + a 30mm prime for nighttime... im thinking my 50 will be too long for most shots.

the 24-105 is for full frame, go with the 17-50 2.8

17-50OS + Sigma 30/1.4

Never had the opportunity to try the Canon. Went back and forth trying to decide for a while and ultimately got the Sigma because of price. I'm just an enthusiast, at best, so I figured I didn't need an expensive lens like the canon 17-55. Couldn't be happier with the Sigma. I feel like focus is fast and accurate (nothing much to compare it to) but I understand that the Canon is faster.

I'd get the Sigma between the two. The price on the Canon is too high for the type of lens you are getting. I am all for paying if the price matches the quality (like Canon's 70-200 f2.8 MKII), but the 17-55 didn't really impress me. Save your money, get a hood, get a case, get a decent warranty, get a Sigma

Siggy FTW

get the sigma...awesome lens.

wish i would have gotten it instead of my tamron.