Battle of the Sigmas

The Sigma 17-70mm VS the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8

Thoughts?

More of a range vs speed issue to me.

I'm hearing the 18-50 IS a bit slow....

the EX macro is better.

make sure to buy the new macro version , the old EX is not as good.

http://www.mobile01.co​m/newsdetail.php?id=33​17

http://www.popphoto.co​m …50mm-f28-ex-dc-macro.html

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

You may want to look at the reviews on phtozone.de. Klaus will describe how the AF does. Not scientific, just he subjective view on the AF quality.

Range v speed is the choice ... I doubt there is much IQ difference either way. Build is good on the 17-70mm but the 18-50mm is an EX so you may expect better ... not sure how to be honest tho'. I had the 17-70mm as a replacement for my ex 17-40mm L due to range and was very impressed.

Have you considered either Canon's 17-55mm or 17-85mm?

jr_senator wrote in post #3235450
Have you considered either Canon's 17-55mm or 17-85mm?

Sigmas are terrible lenses.

angryhampster wrote in post #3235469
Sigmas are terrible lenses.

Lol, says the man with a sackful of Sigma glass

I'm pretty much facing the same dilemma. I wish there was more info out there on the new macro version of the 18-50. But from what I've read, it's great.

OK welcome to lens selection 101.

Which is the best lens depends what you want to shoot - choose the lens appropriate to your needs!

I've never used the 18-50 but I use the 17-70 as my standard lens; I'd say I shoot about 95% of all my pics on it and coupled with a good quality circular polariser it's awesome.

Graham

angryhampster wrote in post #3235469
Sigmas are terrible lenses.

I was ready to fire away......until I saw the lens list

El Duderino wrote in post #3235639
I'm pretty much facing the same dilemma. I wish there was more info out there on the new macro version of the 18-50. But from what I've read, it's great.

Look at the sample I posted , well, it's re-sized , but still it is sharp and nice .

The Photography monthly in the UK and Mobile01 (Taiwanese site )chose the sigma 18-50EX macro as winner of walk around lens contest (all selected lenses are f2.8 lenses ;Canon EF-S17-55IS ,Nikon 17-55,Tamron 17-50f2.8 , Sigma 18-50EX macro, Tokina 16-50 f2.8 and Pentax DMC DA16-50f2.8).

Also, Pop photo chose it as the best f2.8 general purpose lens , even better than the Canon EF-S1755IS and Nikon 17-55, they say..........

But as I used my sister's 17-55IS for a month , I confirmed that is the best lens , the Sigma is a great lens in term of pure IQ contest , though without the IS , the keeper rate is not great , which is more important thant the 100percent crop level of coner sharpness.

That said , if I have to choose only one lens , I will definitely go with my 17-85IS.

The 4 stop advantage of the IS power is amazing ,3 days a go, on a shakey ferry at dusk ,I could shoot a nice temple right side of Bangkok river at Shutter speed of 1/3th and AV f11 , ISO400.

If you use and get used to using the IS , you wont buy a Sigma or Tokina unless it is a super wide(like 10-20) or prime(30EX).

A teeny bit more resolving power of those third pirty lenses are not significant but lack of the IS and USM is a big big problem , even if the Canon 17-55IS or 85IS are less sharp than the Sigma at 50mm point as the Pop photo editor says , it is not great enough difference to go for the Sigma or Tmaron (you dont even notice it in a normal size print or on a computer screen).

The 17-85IS is under rated , it is a very good lens esp when it is used with a couple of primes (I use it with the EF-S60 macro and EF50 f1.8 and 1.4).

A UK review found that the 17-85IS at 85 mm is actually almost as sharp as the EF85 f1.8 , I post link below.

http://www.cameralabs.​com …_lens_upgrade/p​age4.shtml

I think considering its real life practicality , the 17-85IS should be more respected , at least , it is not worse than the Sigma 17-70, which I dont think is as great as it is worshipped by photozone or Ephotozine.....you can not use that lens in low light , but the 17-85IS is still very udeful in low light as long as you are shooting static things.

I dont think the 17-70 can shoot anything sharp at TV 1/3th at 70mm in low light , but the 17-85IS can do that easily.

I could never hand-hold the 17-70 at 1/13th ............while I could hand-hold my 17-85Is at 0.3 sec without any serious problem.
And , the 17-55IS can go down even slower to 1 sec.

When people talk about IQ , that usually means the absolute corner sharpness, but I think average IQ of 100 shots in a row(consistency of IQ) is more important.

That is why , I think the IS is more important feature than anything else.

Maybe this does not apply to a prime or super wide like 17-40 or 10-22 but I think it is important to have IS on a general walk-around lens.

canon_fire wrote in post #3233131
The Sigma 17-70mm VS the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8

Thoughts?

I asked my girlfriend if she thought I needed something wider, or more length.
She looked at my equipement and suggested I get the 17-70.........