Battle of the Sigmas

angryhampster wrote in post #3235469
Sigmas are terrible lenses.

Well, you certainly have the credentials to make such a statement.

I have 18-50 EX not the macro version.
At first I really love the lens. I shot almost 90% with it and most of them come out just like what I wanted, even surprised with the sharpness and the colour rendering is good.

However,.. as I tried the new 18-50 EX Macro and also 17-70, although only around the shops, I grew to like them more. Right now my 18-50 EX just feel normal to me, not surprising or wow me anymore.
It's true sometimes I really want the IS, but to sacrifice f2.8 speed with what's the f/ for 17-85? 4-5.6 ?(CMIIW)
Even the IS is very nice but I would take f2.8. Well 17-55 f2.8 IS is out of question.

I got mine really cheap though, because here in Japan the store was selling cheap the old version of 18-50 EX as a kit with 400D, only 10,000 (US$80) difference compared to the kit lens 18-55.

I wanted to change to 17-70, but have not come to terms of price with the store that I usually go to. Now I think I would just save for 17-55 f/2.8,... in a distance future.

My 18-50 is freakin' sweet man! Maybe the macro is better, but I'll stick with what i got. Tried to sell it for a 24-70 but I was afraid I'd be disappointed in quality. Sig 24-70 not Canon.

Love the lens and thought about the 17-70 for range but anything higher than F2.8 just doesn't work for me where I normally shoot. I will sell it to support the purchase of Canon's 24-70 'cause I do need that reach, but that'll be after I get one. I really love this lens and the results I get.