Sigma 18-50f2.8 (new) vs. Canon 18-55IS

Has anyone used the new Sigma 18-50 (with 72mm filter)? I wonder if it is going to give me any sharper photos than I get from the kit lens...
The only review I have seen is on Pop Photo, and I don't know what to make of it.

artyH wrote in post #9503861
Has anyone used the new Sigma 18-50 (with 72mm filter)? I wonder if it is going to give me any sharper photos than I get from the kit lens...
The only review I have seen is on Pop Photo, and I don't know what to make of it.

I assume you do mean the 18-50 f2.8 Macro and not the very new 18-50 f2.8-4.5 OS HSM. If so, you're talking about a different class of glass with a constant f2.8 lens. I guarantee you'll get sharper shots at f2.8 than you will with the kit lens at f2.8.

The kit lens will not shoot at 2.8, if you shoot portraits 2.8 is nice to have for the single person shot, if you shoot groups then 2.8 might not be practical due to it's limited DOF, you'll have to shoot at 5.6 and up and the kit lens does a good job at that. If you shoot at night in the city or want very good landscape shots in very low lights the 2.8 comes in very handy, so it all depends on what you shoot most. I think the 18-55 is lens is a very capable lens but that's just my opinion.

LightRules wrote in post #9504042
I assume you do mean the 18-50 f2.8 Macro and not the very new 18-50 f2.8-4.5 OS HSM. If so, you're talking about a different class of glass with a constant f2.8 lens. I guarantee you'll get sharper shots at f2.8 than you will with the kit lens at f2.8.

Yes, that is the lens that I am referring to. I think that this is it:
http://www.amazon.com …tails?ie=UTF8&m​e=&seller=

I already have the 18-55IS, and wondering if it is worth stepping up to this one, or if it will be a wash. The kit lens is pretty good, but generally needs a bump in contrast, even if shooting JPEGS. I find my primes are usually sharper.

I wondered if this one was prone to the problems I have seen described about the older 18-50 Ex lens - decentering, front focus, etc.
I do like Sigma - I have and like the 50f2.8 macro, but I don't want to buy a lens knowing I am likely to return it to the manufacturer for calibration, or to the vendor.

Don't you have the 35mm f2 already? I think I have heard you talk about it.

If so, you are probably going to be in the same boat as me. I tried an f2.8 zoom to replace the 18-55, but I also have the Sigma 30mm f1.4. F2.8 is always pushing it indoors with low light, but f1.4-2 is almost always enough. So I found when I was indoors, my normal prime came out. Outdoors, I never shot at f2.8 anyway, so it was kind of pointless. At f5.6, the lenses will be pretty close in performance. At f2.8, the zoom is wide open and the primes look better anyway. I ended up dropping the f2.8 standard zoom and traded it for a longer one to do portraits. The Sigma focuses closer at 50mm, but you just said you have a macro prime, so no need for that either.

So while I have never used that lens, my experience tells me you probably won't use it enough to justify $400 unless you plan to replace your primes with the zoom.

I won't replace my 35f2 or my other primes with a zoom. I could be looking at a few events where a better quality zoom might be useful. I do have flash, and so I may not really need the f2.8.

I can think of a number of scenarios where a zoom that gives you good photos - and better than the 18-55IS - would be good. I may want to experiment a little more with the 18-55 before spending more money -
But I would like a sharper zoom, and the 15-85 is expensive. I wouldn't want to spend that much right now, but I might in the future. I was curious about the Sigma, given the glowing review in Pop Photo.

When Canon released the 18-55 IS they did IMO allow the user to be a little more selective & not be in such a hurry in their upgrade choices. Folks that purchase an external flash bounced vertically with the camera in manual and use ETTL can take some very nice indoor portraits with the kit lens set at its sweetspot of 35mm & f5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=3

Regards,

Silverfox1 wrote in post #9505667
When Canon released the 18-55 IS they did IMO allow the user to be a little more selective & not be in such a hurry in their upgrade choices. Folks that purchase an external flash bounced vertically with the camera in manual and use ETTL can take some very nice indoor portraits with the kit lens set at its sweetspot of 35mm & f5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=3

Regards,

Thats the older one though, the Non-Macro

I haven't seen a detailed review of the new Sigma - the macro version that takes 72mm filters.

artyH wrote in post #9506280
I haven't seen a detailed review of the new Sigma - the macro version that takes 72mm filters.

They did a review at photozone for it on a Nikon...you can get a rough idea about its performance from it

http://www.photozone.d​e …o-review--lab-test-report

At least optically

Thanks for the link. The focus system is different, and there were comments about centering problems, not so hot performance wide open and lack of focus accuracy. I'd really like to see a review of the Canon version, especially since the focus system is different.

artyH wrote in post #9506958
Thanks for the link. The focus system is different, and there were comments about centering problems, not so hot performance wide open and lack of focus accuracy. I'd really like to see a review of the Canon version, especially since the focus system is different.

True...

As for the centering problems, photozone gets a lot of that it seems...Not being mean, just saying they get a very high number of lenses with centering problems, And its not just sigma..

I've read more frequent reports of this with zooms - not surprising. Zooms are more complicated in terms of mechanics and the number of lenses.
One poster on another website said that every 18-50 Sigmaf2/8 he saw was decentered, but this was the older model.
I wondered if Sigma got it right on the new version.

Theyre in different catagories because of the sigma's constant 2.8 aperture.

Sigma has two 18-50f 2.8 macro lenses. The older one uses 67 mm filters, and is reviewed in photozone.
The new one uses 72mm filters. It is also a fixed f2.8. Both are f2.8, not variable f2.8-f4.5, but one model is older.
The only review in Canon mount that I have seen is on the Pop Photo website. They say it is great, but everything seems above average in Pop Photo world.
There is a review of the new one, but as Kenjis pointed out - it is a Nikon mount and has HSM focusing.