canon 17-55 f/2 v Sigma 17-70 mm f/2.8-4 OS HSM DC Lens

what is the major differences if any apart from the build quality. im seriously considering getting the canon 17-55 but, before i commit i'm finding out which similar lenses are good for my needs at a cheaper price if any. it will be usedfor mainly kickboxing events close up to the ring and, also for everyday walking about

If you want similar to the canon 17-55 f2.8 at a lower price then there is the sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS and tamron 17-50 f2.8

The sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 is both longer on the telephoto end but not a constant f2.8. While still a great lens its not apples to apples with the canon 17-55

gremlin75 wrote in post #16861102
If you want similar to the canon 17-55 f2.8 at a lower price then there is the sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS and tamron 17-50 f2.8

The sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 is both longer on the telephoto end but not a constant f2.8. While still a great lens its not apples to apples with the canon 17-55

is there much difference between the three as in quality of pictures?

tjs42 wrote in post #16861132
is there much difference between the three as in quality of pictures?

No. The AF of the canon is a little faster then either of the others (with the tamron being the slowest IMO). I think the canon is a little sharper then the sigma in the corners and the sigma is a little sharper in the center then the canon.

You can go to the digital picture, that have a lens comparison tool so you can contain IQ, flare, distortion, ect, side by side.

Here is a youtube I saw when making my decision amongst them. https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=T3UfbsdfUu8

I originally decided on the Sigma 17-50 2.8 because bang for the buck brand new I have seen it lately for as low as $419. That said after using it I decided that although the lens itself is nice the feel just wasn't right for me. I then picked up the 17-55 2.8 from canon at a much higher used price compared to the sigma. I love the feel of it and the pictures are comparable.

So your decision kinda breaks down to most affordable bang for buck or higher priced Canon with what I subjectively feel is a better feel a slightly faster AF and full time manual focus.

The Sigma also comes with a lens hood and case as part of the package standard. If you are ok with the feel IMO you don't lose much in comparison to the Canon 17-55 2.8 (remember though there is the extremely random AF adjustment issues that some 3rd party lenses seem to have according to reviews).

Look for the sigma 17-50 on ebay from japan to go for the $350 range. Picked up a brandnew tack sharp copy a month ago. Simply a fantastic lens. I had the tamron non-vc version and felt this was a nice step up. I wouldnt even consider the sigma 17-70 after having the constant 2.8.

i think i'll just pay the extra and go with the canon at, least i will be getting quality. thanks for all the replies