Canon 17-55 vs Sigma 17-50

I've been trying to decide which of these lenses to purchase. To my novice eye, the shots I've seen of each here on the forum are all really good. The appeal of the Sigma is obviously the price point and I've seen a lot of people say that the build quality is better than the Canon?

Anyway, I know there are other threads out there discussing these two lenses. What I'm really looking for is side by side shots from each lens. Anyone have some?

i just got the 17-55 and i love it. but you should try a search.

I am a Sigma fan but have a hard time believing that their 17-50 can match the performance of the Canon 17-55. It really is a magic lens.

I had the Sig before going with the 17/55. The only thing it had going for it was a somewhat better build quality. The rest I did not care for. The Canon is worth every penny I paid for it.

Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #11480070
I had the Sig before going with the 17/55. The only thing it had going for it was a somewhat better build quality. The rest I did not care for. The Canon is worth every penny I paid for it.

can you be a bit more descriptive in what was lacking in the Sigma?

orena wrote in post #11479896
i just got the 17-55 and i love it. but you should try a search.

Thanks. I have been trying to search for comparison shots, but it seems like they are few and far between. You can find great shots from each lens, but no side by side comparison shots to really give you an idea of the kind of different between the two under the same lighting conditions, etc.

District_History_Fan wrote in post #11480068
I am a Sigma fan but have a hard time believing that their 17-50 can match the performance of the Canon 17-55. It really is a magic lens.

Yeah, this is my thinking too, but some of the shots found on this thread looks quite amazing to me. Some are so-so, but some are extremely sharp: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=886454. This page has some good ones: https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=8864​54&page=13

Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #11480070
I had the Sig before going with the 17/55. The only thing it had going for it was a somewhat better build quality. The rest I did not care for. The Canon is worth every penny I paid for it.

Glad to hear from someone who's used both lenses. When you say "the rest," can you elaborate? Like I said, the shots I've seen with the lens look quite good and seem to be on par with many that I've seen from the 17-55. I know the Sigma doesn't have full time manual focus and the focus ring rotates when auto-focusing, but I'm not sure those two things are worth the extra $400+? Maybe there's more advantages to the Canon than meets the eye? Hopefully you can give more details.

Thanks

I absolutely love my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and consider it among the best lenses I have ever used in 50-years of photography.

I cannot speak for the Sigma because I own only one Sigma which has become obsolete because of Sigma's reverse engineering concept.

Canon never licensed their technology to Sigma for lens manufacture. Sigma will buy each Canon camera as it is introduced and reverse engineer their lenses to fit on the new camera if needed.

They will no longer update my 28mm f/1.8 Sigma lens to work on any camera more recent than the Canon 10D. As a result, this is the only and last piece of Sigma gear I will ever buy.

BTW: I have not had similar problems with older Tamron and Tokina lenses...

faboo wrote in post #11480178
can you be a bit more descriptive in what was lacking in the Sigma?

The two most important things to me: color renditioning (mainly contrast) and ergonomics.

98% of the images in my Aperture library are taken with my 17/55 and none are from the Sigma that I owned for about a week and a half. I will say that it was a sharp copy but overall the Canon just "draws" it's images better in my eyes. They just seem to have much more character.

RPCrowe wrote in post #11480973
I absolutely love my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and consider it among the best lenses I have ever used in 50-years of photography.

I cannot speak for the Sigma because I own only one Sigma which has become obsolete because of Sigma's reverse engineering concept.

Canon never licensed their technology to Sigma for lens manufacture. Sigma will buy each Canon camera as it is introduced and reverse engineer their lenses to fit on the new camera if needed.

They will no longer update my 28mm f/1.8 Sigma lens to work on any camera more recent than the Canon 10D. As a result, this is the only and last piece of Sigma gear I will ever buy.

BTW: I have not had similar problems with older Tamron and Tokina lenses...

Thank you! Didn't realize that about Sigma. All Canon lenses work on all Canon bodies, correct? Except for those that only work on the crop bodies? So, if that's the case and Sigma reverse engineers the Canon lens to make their own work on Canon bodies, wouldn't that then make the Sigma lens work on new and old Canon bodies? Or do older Canon lenses not work on newer bodies also?

deronsizemore wrote in post #11481040
Thank you! Didn't realize that about Sigma. All Canon lenses work on all Canon bodies, correct? Except for those that only work on the crop bodies? So, if that's the case and Sigma reverse engineers the Canon lens to make their own work on Canon bodies, wouldn't that then make the Sigma lens work on new and old Canon bodies? Or do older Canon lenses not work on newer bodies also?

I wouldn't put that much into the reply, this just isn't that big a problem. I have had many Sigma lenses, and haven't had that issue. I have had the issue where one of their flashes wouldn't work on the 7D, but I ended up selling it. There are some spectacular lenses made by Sigma for which there are no Canon counterparts. Like anything else, just research the reviews of their lenses for which to pick up.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #11481356
I wouldn't put that much into the reply, this just isn't that big a problem. I have had many Sigma lenses, and haven't had that issue. I have had the issue where one of their flashes wouldn't work on the 7D, but I ended up selling it. There are some spectacular lenses made by Sigma for which there are no Canon counterparts. Like anything else, just research the reviews of their lenses for which to pick up.

Thank you. Any issues at all with Sigma? I really think the 17-50 would suite my needs just fine, but after reading numerous reports of QA issues, long turnover times for any maintenance, etc., I'm worried that I may regret the decision to get it a year or so down the road.

I think the main issues with sigma is focus calibration. I haven't really heard about other issues.

Check out this review:
http://photo.net/equip​ment/canon/efs17-55/

hubcaps wrote in post #11481824
I think the main issues with sigma is focus calibration. I haven't really heard about other issues.

Check out this review:
http://photo.net/equip​ment/canon/efs17-55/

Thank you. I actually read that earlier. Seems that there's not much difference at all between the Sigma and Canon as far as IQ goes.

I'm on my second copy of the Sigma 17-50 and was really holding out hope that this would be a great lens for me. I love an underdog. Unfortunately there are focus issues in both copies I tried. When focus "hits" this is a terrific lens. It's unpredictable though. Luckily I don't make a living with photography... if I did I'd opt for the Canon .

If you have the budget for the Canon, why not go for it?