Sigma 17-70 and 18-50

WHich of these is a better wuality lens, which has a better build quality and which is best suited for the canon digital rebel.

I just got the new sigma 18-50 2.8 macro and it's a whole lot better quality than the kit lens I'd shoot with before. I hear a lot of people like the new 18-50.

We just had one of these threads...let's see.

Found it!

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=322025

don't buy the 17-70 unless you know that you won't shoot in low light .

the 18-50 macro is an excelelnt lens ; all reviews in all languages selected it as the best walk-around lens, popphoto, photography monthly, ephotozine, mobile01 and sweeden's best photo mag(forgot the name of it).

People who are critical of this lens, often confused it with the older 18-50 EX, the new macro version is an excelelnt lens , and probably better than the Tmaron , I prefer 17mm of the Tamron , though.

The old one is just as good so there's no need to be critical of that lens as well. Have you owned the old one?

I am not critical , people bashing the Sigma are usually overly critical and comparing these numbers in photozone(which definitely is from the old one) , to conclude the Tamron is the best in this price range.

I just can not get it why so many people do not even know the new version of the EX macro is already out and it is better than most of others , it's not my opinion , but most of mags in EU and Asia conclude that.

I am expecting a lot from Sigma second generation digital-only lenses because of the excellent and improved quality of this particular second generation lens(compared to the old one, I know old one was already quite good ).

I am not saying the oldn one is bad or the Tammy is lousy , but they are not as good as the new Sigma EX macro.

See, i won't say anything because I haven't tried the Macro but if it's better than it's predecessor then there' really something to it and by far the best bang for the buck. Or mine is the best copy out there. Still the 18-50 is an amazing investment they're anything like mine. i wouldn't know of the Sig 24-70 but I'll say this, i love mine so much, was gonna trade, but I was too afriad of any downgrade in quality that I'd rather have an 18-50 range, although i do need that extra 20

but personally , I am waiting for Tokina 16-50 to come to SE-Asia.
this lens starts from 16mm , and it is more than wide enough, if I get this to replace my Tamron , I won't need a dedicated UWA and so save a lot of money(UWA's are expensive).

16mm and 17mm make a quite huge difference in view , I compared it once in my home and I liked it ,the Tokina has great color reproduction rate , more resolving power than the Sigma 18-50EX macro (the Tamron still has the edge here, though).

But the biggest problem with the Tokina is PF and distorion.

I dont know when it will be out here,but I think it's been available in Japan for already 2 months.

And I know it's fianlly out in US.

The difference between 10 and 16-18 is too much of a difference for me to give up my UWA since when used, it's mostly shot at 10-12