Here's a little test I did just a few moments ago. Sigma 17-50 vs. 50mm f1.8 (Canon).
Sigma @ 45mm. Both lenses @ f5.6, both shot @ ISO 100. Photo's taken on a tripod, remote shutter release, Live View w/ maximum magnification for AF lock.
Sigma Full Image (Click for various sizes up to 100%)
| HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO |
Sigma 100% Crop
| HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO |
Canon Full Image (Click for various sizes up to 100%)
| HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO |
Canon 100% Crop
| HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO |
I honestly can't even distinguish any major differences between the two. Both are razor sharp. I definitely love the focal range of the Sigma, it's such a great all-around lens!!
I have both of the lenses and I can't tell the difference between the two either on a lot of shots. To me, the biggest factors that make the Sigma better (if you've got the money to spend, of course) is the faster autofocus and the OS feature of the Sigma. Seems that I can take shots at much slower shutter speeds with the Sigma than I can with the Canon 50mm/1.8. Talking about hand-held shots here.
Plus, like you said, I just like the focal range. The 50mm is a great, inexpensive lens, but I felt like my hands where tied at times when I wanted to get a wide angle shot of something.
Have you noticed the same?







