Canon 17-55 vs Sigma 17-50

mules wrote in post #11482337
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 .

Have you heard this being a problem with this lens in particular? Or is this just a Sigma thing in general? Also, why not try to replace it again and get a good copy? Maybe you've just had bad luck, twice?

paperchasin wrote in post #11482901
If you have the budget for the Canon, why not go for it?

Good question. Just because I can afford the Canon doesn't mean I really want too. I'll still look for a better deal (if it exists). If I can get the same quality pics with something $400 cheaper, why not go for it and save the money? The more I read though, the more it's looking like the Canon is the way to go.

The Sigma is superb. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't think so either got a bad copy (can happen with Canon too), or doesn't actually have the lens and is just jumping on the 3rd party smash bandwagon.

I rented the Canon and compared it to my Sigma. Both are equally great.

The only real advantage is the full time manual focus. Depending on how you shoot, this could be a big difference.

For me it wasn't, as this is just a hobby. If I was a pro, I probably would have gone with the Canon.

But for me, the same money allows me to get a Macro lens plus a short zoom...

I had the following lenses when I had 50D. Tamron 17-50 non-VC, Sigma 24-60, Sigma 24-70, Canon 17-55, Canon 24-70L and Canon 24-105L. I kept the 24-105L. It provided the best combination of IQ, USM, IS and reach for me.

I would rank Tamron 17-50 and Canon 17-55 on nearly the same in term of IQ. For most shots, IQ differenece is very minimal. Canon 17-55's USM and IS are the biggest improvements. I did not get a chance to try Sigma 17-50 OS.

rjmcinnis wrote in post #11484271
The Sigma is superb. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't think so either got a bad copy (can happen with Canon too), or doesn't actually have the lens and is just jumping on the 3rd party smash bandwagon.

I rented the Canon and compared it to my Sigma. Both are equally great.

The only real advantage is the full time manual focus. Depending on how you shoot, this could be a big difference.

For me it wasn't, as this is just a hobby. If I was a pro, I probably would have gone with the Canon.

But for me, the same money allows me to get a Macro lens plus a short zoom...

Good points; all things to keep in mind. It does seem there are a lot of people happy with the Sigma, although people do get bad copies. People do get bad copies of the Canon as well. Like you, this is just a hobby for me (at this point.) It's something that I started doing when my daughter was born and I've really taken a liking to it all. May turn into something more in the future for me but who knows? Even though majority of my shots are of my daughter, I still want the best quality possible.

On your Sigma, I've read that the focus ring rotates when the autofocus works? Do you find this to be a problem with where you're holding the lens? Seems to be a common dislike with this lens.

RE: Full time manual focus. To be honest, I'm not sure if this is a deal breaker for me or not. I only have the nifty-fifty right now, so it could be that I don't know what I'm missing with FTM? That also is the other big dislike of the Sigma. But, to be fair, the lens is $400 cheaper than the Canon, so one would expect it to have less features. A lot of the images I've seen taken with it are great, though. I just wonder about the resell value of the Sigma a year or two from now? I know if I get the 17-55mm and decide to sell down the road, that thing holds it's value well. Not sure if the same can be said for Sigma lenses?

deronsizemore wrote in post #11483871
Good question. Just because I can afford the Canon doesn't mean I really want too. I'll still look for a better deal (if it exists). If I can get the same quality pics with something $400 cheaper, why not go for it and save the money? The more I read though, the more it's looking like the Canon is the way to go.

That's exactly my point. I've never heard of anyone buying a Canon lens and regretting it, wishing they should've went with the 3rd party lens. But I have seen many people buy 3rd party lens and wish they'd went with the Canon lens. So if money is even a slightest factor, you need to ask yourself if the Canon is it worth the extra $$. If you aren't concerned with cost, or "value", go for the Canon. And like you said, you can always sell the Canon later down the road since it holds its value pretty well.

I'm all for good third party products and really wanted to be a 17/50 pioneer as I was a very early adopter of the lens but it just didn't do it for me like the Canon has. Since lenses don't really depreciate and the Sigma is still fairly new you could always buy it and sell it for $30 less if you don't care for it like I was able to do. FWIW you can find used copies of the Canon w/hood for $800 if you shop around. After I sold my Sigma I found myself in a bind and picked up my excellent Canon copy for $900 w/a genuine hood in less than two hours.

paperchasin wrote in post #11484636
That's exactly my point. I've never heard of anyone buying a Canon lens and regretting it, wishing they should've went with the 3rd party lens. But I have seen many people buy 3rd party lens and wish they'd went with the Canon lens. So if money is even a slightest factor, you need to ask yourself if the Canon is it worth the extra $$. If you aren't concerned with cost, or "value", go for the Canon. And like you said, you can always sell the Canon later down the road since it holds its value pretty well.

Thanks again. Probably worth it to just go ahead and spend the extra cash. I'm sure I won't regret it.

Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #11484787
I'm all for good third party products and really wanted to be a 17/50 pioneer as I was a very early adopter of the lens but it just didn't do it for me like the Canon has. Since lenses don't really depreciate and the Sigma is still fairly new you could always buy it and sell it for $30 less if you don't care for it like I was able to do. FWIW you can find used copies of the Canon w/hood for $800 if you shop around. After I sold my Sigma I found myself in a bind and picked up my excellent Canon copy for $900 w/a genuine hood in less than two hours.

Maybe it's just me, but I've never been a fan of buying used on things like this. You just never know how well the person has taken care of the lens.

deronsizemore wrote in post #11484388
But, to be fair, the lens is $400 cheaper than the Canon, so one would expect it to have less features. A lot of the images I've seen taken with it are great, though. I just wonder about the resell value of the Sigma a year or two from now? I know if I get the 17-55mm and decide to sell down the road, that thing holds it's value well. Not sure if the same can be said for Sigma lenses?

You will have at least a 30% hit on the Canon 17-55 from new to used, and I expect that same sort of hit on the Sigma. It depends on the lens in particular though, like the Sigma 10-20 has less than a 30% hit.

deronsizemore wrote in post #11484388
Good points; all things to keep in mind. It does seem there are a lot of people happy with the Sigma, although people do get bad copies. People do get bad copies of the Canon as well. Like you, this is just a hobby for me (at this point.) It's something that I started doing when my daughter was born and I've really taken a liking to it all. May turn into something more in the future for me but who knows? Even though majority of my shots are of my daughter, I still want the best quality possible.

On your Sigma, I've read that the focus ring rotates when the autofocus works? Do you find this to be a problem with where you're holding the lens? Seems to be a common dislike with this lens.

RE: Full time manual focus. To be honest, I'm not sure if this is a deal breaker for me or not. I only have the nifty-fifty right now, so it could be that I don't know what I'm missing with FTM? That also is the other big dislike of the Sigma. But, to be fair, the lens is $400 cheaper than the Canon, so one would expect it to have less features. A lot of the images I've seen taken with it are great, though. I just wonder about the resell value of the Sigma a year or two from now? I know if I get the 17-55mm and decide to sell down the road, that thing holds it's value well. Not sure if the same can be said for Sigma lenses?

Ha ha, I will answer your question this way--

I had to go pick up my camera and see if the focus ring actually moves during focus... You are right, it certainly does!

And the fact that I have owned this lens for 4 months and didn't know it, means it certainly doesn't bother me... It genuinely made me laugh to find this out.

I shoot a 7D, not sure about you, so I don't know how it would balance. For me, it is great. I find it much more comfortable than the Canon 17-55 in my hands. The build quality is superb, and the grip "just fits".

FTM has the advantage of immediate correction for an unmissable shot. Like I said, as a pro I wouldn't hesitate on the Canon. But for me, saving the extra to put towards the Tamron 60mm Macro was the better path to take.

Either way, even taking AF out of the equation, if you like to focus manually, the Canon is MUCH easier. The reason is the Sigma has a significantly shorter amount of "turn" (wrong term, but it's late right now...) so it's harder to hit the magic spot. If you shoot much video, this will definitely matter.

There is no doubt, the Canon will retain it's value much better than the Sigma.

In the end, EITHER lens is better than I am as a photographer. My limits come much faster than the lenses' do. For me, it was no contest, the Canon is not 40% better than the Sigma, as the FTM was the only benefit that I could ascertain.

rjmcinnis wrote in post #11489224
Ha ha, I will answer your question this way--

I had to go pick up my camera and see if the focus ring actually moves during focus... You are right, it certainly does!

And the fact that I have owned this lens for 4 months and didn't know it, means it certainly doesn't bother me... It genuinely made me laugh to find this out.

I shoot a 7D, not sure about you, so I don't know how it would balance. For me, it is great. I find it much more comfortable than the Canon 17-55 in my hands. The build quality is superb, and the grip "just fits".

FTM has the advantage of immediate correction for an unmissable shot. Like I said, as a pro I wouldn't hesitate on the Canon. But for me, saving the extra to put towards the Tamron 60mm Macro was the better path to take.

Either way, even taking AF out of the equation, if you like to focus manually, the Canon is MUCH easier. The reason is the Sigma has a significantly shorter amount of "turn" (wrong term, but it's late right now...) so it's harder to hit the magic spot. If you shoot much video, this will definitely matter.

There is no doubt, the Canon will retain it's value much better than the Sigma.

In the end, EITHER lens is better than I am as a photographer. My limits come much faster than the lenses' do. For me, it was no contest, the Canon is not 40% better than the Sigma, as the FTM was the only benefit that I could ascertain.

Yeah, that proves that the focus ring moving may not be as much of an issue as some say it is. I currently have the T1i, but would love to get the 7D at some point as I don't really see going full frame in my immediate future or ever; just too expensive.

Thanks for all of your thoughts on this lens. I REALLY need to try both out and make a decision. Would be much easier than speculating, but I don't think the local shop has the Sigma. Maybe just have to order it and send it back if I don't like it.

rjmcinnis wrote in post #11489224
There is no doubt, the Canon will retain it's value much better than the Sigma.

Explain please? I keep a tight watch on used equipment prices, and I see about the same price drops across both lines where they have similar products, like the 10-22 vs 10-20 or other similar focal length lenses. Both drop around 25-35% from new to used within the first year, much like cars, unfortunately.

deronsizemore wrote in post #11490742
Yeah, that proves that the focus ring moving may not be as much of an issue as some say it is. I currently have the T1i, but would love to get the 7D at some point as I don't really see going full frame in my immediate future or ever; just too expensive.

Thanks for all of your thoughts on this lens. I REALLY need to try both out and make a decision. Would be much easier than speculating, but I don't think the local shop has the Sigma. Maybe just have to order it and send it back if I don't like it.

The fact that that the Sigma 17-50 focus ring rotates when you focus on a subject does not have an effect upon how you hold any camera upon which it is mounted. However, what has not yet been pointed out is that this rotation means that using a polarizing filter will be, at best, difficult if not impossible. So if you don't need to use a polarizing filter or any other filter that would be effected by the rotation, think graduated density filters, that screw onto the lens, the fact that it rotates makes no difference.

justmetoo wrote in post #11492290
The fact that that the Sigma 17-50 focus ring rotates when you focus on a subject does not have an effect upon how you hold any camera upon which it is mounted. However, what has not yet been pointed out is that this rotation means that using a polarizing filter will be, at best, difficult if not impossible. So if you don't need to use a polarizing filter or any other filter that would be effected by the rotation, think graduated density filters, that screw onto the lens, the fact that it rotates makes no difference.

OK, thanks. I wasn't sure, but some of the other threads I've read seem to indicate that the rotation of the ring gets in the way of holding the lens at times if you're not careful.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #11491130
Explain please? I keep a tight watch on used equipment prices, and I see about the same price drops across both lines where they have similar products, like the 10-22 vs 10-20 or other similar focal length lenses. Both drop around 25-35% from new to used within the first year, much like cars, unfortunately.

yeah i dont think we can say much about the sigma's value as it relates to used value based on it being relatively new to the market. But the canon has been out for about 4 years now and still used prices are in the $800-875 range based on age and condition which isnt too bad. A new 17-55 is going for about $990 on amazon and the new sigma has dropped as low as $570 but new on amazon for $660 as of today. For extra $150 I wouldn't hesitate to wait for a used 17-55 to pop up in the classifieds. Ive played with the new sigma and i felt it was a great lens for the money, what i didnt like was the slower AF, and no FTM.

edit : i feel the bokeh is better on the 17-55 too!

eg6turbo wrote in post #11492370
what i didnt like was the slower AF, and no FTM.

Slower compared to what? The 17-55? Every review I've read talks about how the AF on the Sigma 17-50 is very fast?