Sigma 17-70 to Canon 17-55?

I have been using the Sigma 17-70 for shooting landscapes and for my walk-around lens and have really enjoyed it and have been very pleased with the results.

But I am shooting a wedding and I am tempted to go to the Canon 17-55 for the IS and for the constant 2.8.

Has anyone made the same change? Did you miss the extra reach? Is there noticable difference in IQ?

Nic

The Sigma is a good lens. The Canon is the cream of the crop.

LightRules wrote in post #6995241
The Canon is the cream of the crop.

Nicely said...

I just dream about that lens...

yes, i made that exact switch last year and have not regretted it one bit

Owned both and both great, but the Canon is better. As to reach you will miss it but you will also miss speed and IS if you stick with the Sigma. Compromise as you need to.

I've used both lenses and currently 17-55 is my main lens and 17-70 is collecting dust.

I would try 17-70 in similar light as where you will be photographing. Do the photos look like you would need something better?

I was worried that 17-55 wouldn't have enough reach for me but that really hasn't been an issue. There is just a little less room for cropping than with 17-70. Both have good enough IQ for me.

17-55 is better in many ways: focuses a lot faster, 2.8 in all focal lenghts, IS makes a huge difference for subjects that don't move (you can handhold shots like this), its filter size is more convenient for me.

17-70 has also its advantages: It is a lot smaller and cheaper. I wouldn't be surprised if it flares less than 17-55.

17-55 is not better in the same proportion as the price difference would indicate. But if you need 2.8 + IS then you need it.

I have never used the sigma, but the 17-55IS on a 30D handles quite nicely.

It spends all of its time on one of my bodys. If I need some DOF , I can feel comfy with it. I love my primes but this lens gets called on alot for my style.

I find shooting F8 , I seldom have to sharpen.