Best fit in my lineup - Canon 17-55 or Sigma 18-35??

I'd like to pick up one more lens to round out my current lineup. As you can see from my signature, I have a Canon 7D and have a nice telephoto (70-200) for sports/outdoors, a nice macro (100), a decent and versatile "walk-around" lens (18-270) but don't have anything ideal for indoor pics of the kids (bdays, holidays, etc.) or other close up activities in low(er) light (playing, hangin' out, baseball/softball, etc.).

I used my Tamron 18-270 to take some pics at 18, 35 and 55 to compare the range differences and the Canon 17-55 range would be ideal, IMO, plus it has IS which would be a big bonus for me as I much prefer to shoot free-hand almost all the time. That being said, I really wish the lens was sealed for dust because I take a lot of pics at my kids' BB and SB games and those get dusty as heck. Yes, I have the Canon 70-200 (which I'll use most of the time) but I want something for closer dug-out and fan/family pics and better in low light than then the Tamron 18-270.

That being said, would the fixed 1.8 aperture and sealed lens on the Sigma be enough of a bonus to trump the zoom versatility and IS of the Canon 17-55??

**Down the road if/when I have more $$, I might end up with something like the 10-22 and 24-70 combo but that will be YEARS from now according to my budget!

Well, I would get the 17-55, buy a good UV filter and shoot!

julianthebest611 wrote in post #16805897
Well, I would get the 17-55, buy a good UV filter and shoot!

+1 for this. The range, wide aperture and IS make it the best general purpose zoom for the crop-sensor canons.

I believe in primes, and notice you don't have any wide aperture primes. Why aren't you considering a 35mm f/1.4?

For what you describe, I would prefer the Sigma 18-35. You won't really need anything longer indoors, and you will appreciate the extra speed since kids are not stationary objects (IS doesn't help for moving subjects).

But you say you like the range of the 17-55, and you alone know what best suits your own needs.

julianthebest611 wrote in post #16805897
Well, I would get the 17-55, buy a good UV filter and shoot!

Is a filter all that is needed to seal the 17-55? I would think it could also pull in dust around the barrel when zooming (possibly elsewhere, too).

Regarding the suggestion on the 35 1.4, as a crop shooter the 18-35 sigma makes more sense for me. While not quite as wide in the aperture dept, it has the benefit of multiple focal lengths at 1.8, making it more versatile for what I would do with it.

Actually, I use the 35F2 IS for photos of kids and indoor shots on my 60D. If I needed a fast zoom for low light, I would be looking at the 17-55IS. AF is critical for candids of kids, and these two Canons have very fast and accurate AF. I don't have the 17-55, but it is reported to give you very good AF. The AF is terrific on the 35F2IS, and that beats out of focus shots. If you go for the a Sigma, be sure to get the dock and get it from a retailer with a good exchange policy.
I am a fan of Sigma macro lenses, but I don't have the same concerns about AF speed for a macro lens.

"The dust never bothered me anyway"

I considered between the 17-55 and 18-35 for awhile before I went with the Sigma. Sure, you do lose the IS and the 35-55 range, but having so many f1.8 primes in a zoom is a big plus. You get so much more DOF control and the 35-55 range can be compensated by cropping.

Even after moving to FF, I still keep my crop camera just for this zoom.

for the price of those, you could probably swing a sigma 10-20mm, and a tamron 28-75mm...if that's closer to your end goal anyways it may be something to consider

Adharr wrote in post #16806032
I believe in primes, and notice you don't have any wide aperture primes. Why aren't you considering a 35mm f/1.4?

because the sigma 18-35mm is like having 18 primes in one package...it makes more sense on a crop than the 35mm f1.4 in my opinion

You can start off by renting a 17-55 with the UV filter, shoot your kids and see how the lens deals with the dust...if you are not happy, then the lens bit the dust!

18-35. The 17-55 is unimpressive at best.

I really did consider the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. I ended up getting the Canon 35 f/2 IS instead.

The main reason? I know Sigma has been making significant strides in the quality and consistency of their products but people still have problems with some of their products, the 18-35 being one of them.

I don't have enough confidence in their quality control at this point.

Gimpinator wrote in post #16807172
18-35. The 17-55 is unimpressive at best.

Huh? The Canon 17-55 is a highly regarded lens. L quality glass, not as good a build as L, for sure. Constant f/2.8, 3+ stops of IS, outstanding sharpness. Put a filter on it and the dust issue is greatly diminished. Sigma might be getting better, but they have a hell of a long way to go from my experience. Really don't get the "unimpressive" comment, but each to their own.

jake13 wrote in post #16807361
words ... but each to their own.

nailed it