Canon 17-55 vs Sigma 17-50

never owned a sigma, but i have the canon 17-55 IS and i absolutely love it!

justmetoo wrote in post #11492290
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.

Incorrect. The Sigma's frontal section does not rotate so use of a CPL filter is perfectly easy and not a problem. The focus ring rotates, but this is independent of the front section/element.

eg6turbo wrote in post #11492370
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.

With rebate the Canon is 990 while the Sigma is 590 (at Abes). That's a huge difference (400). Without rebate the difference is even bigger.

deronsizemore wrote in post #11492393
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?

I'ved used/tested/owned over 30 copies of the Canon and recently had 4 copies of the Sigma in hand. I'm as familiar with the ins and outs of the Canon as anyone. The most significant strength of the Canon over the Sigma is its AF: speed, FTM, and overall locking accuracy. It's like a heat-seeking missle, just aim and it's locked on. Fantastic AF and IMO one of the fastest AF'ing lenses Canon makes.

That said, I am personally using the Sigma now (after owning many Canon units for several years). Optically they are similar (assuming good copies of both as I've had decentered issues with both and some other minor problems with each). I'll eventually put up some crops. Resolution is close, micro-contrast both very good, edge performance no significant difference. The Canon does a hair better with CA while the Sigma is quite a bit better with flare. Stabilization units are both effective for 3-4 stops.

I like the Sigma's size and build better, its zoom dampening much better, and of course the 4 years warranty is nice. In terms of AF, it's very good, probably an 8 if the Canon is a 10. But I have yet to miss a shot (eg, AI servo) with the Sigma; it is simply quick enough for anything I shoot, indoors or outside.

I like and recommend both lenses. I think APS-C shooters should now seriously consider the Sigma over the Canon because of its perks and price, then use the left over money for other items.

BTW, if the Tamron 17-50 VC had their new USD AF in it (which would have FTM too), I'd be all over that lens. It was fantastic, save for the AF speed.

The 17-55 has grown on me, but from the start i loved the fact it was 100% sharp from f/2.8.
That was also the reason why i paid almost 100% more for this instead of a Tamron/Sigma.

Darkwand wrote in post #11492631
The 17-55 has grown on me, but from the start i loved the fact it was 100% sharp from f/2.8.
That was also the reason why i paid almost 100% more for this instead of a Tamron/Sigma.

Like I said, they are similar wide open, assuming good copies of both. In fact the Sigma might be a little sharper at f2.8.

LightRules wrote in post #11492570
Incorrect. The Sigma's frontal section does not rotate so use of a CPL filter is perfectly easy and not a problem. The focus ring rotates, but this is independent of the front section/element.



With rebate the Canon is 990 while the Sigma is 590 (at Abes). That's a huge difference (400). Without rebate the difference is even bigger.



I'ved used/tested/owned over 30 copies of the Canon and recently had 4 copies of the Sigma in hand. I'm as familiar with the ins and outs of the Canon as anyone. The most significant strength of the Canon over the Sigma is its AF: speed, FTM, and overall locking accuracy. It's like a heat-seeking missle, just aim and it's locked on. Fantastic AF and IMO one of the fastest AF'ing lenses Canon makes.

That said, I am personally using the Sigma now (after owning many Canon units for several years). Optically they are similar (assuming good copies of both as I've had decentered issues with both and some other minor problems with each). I'll eventually put up some crops. Resolution is close, micro-contrast both very good, edge performance no significant difference. The Canon does a hair better with CA while the Sigma is quite a bit better with flare. Stabilization units are both effective for 3-4 stops.

I like the Sigma's size and build better, its zoom dampening much better, and of course the 4 years warranty is nice. In terms of AF, it's very good, probably an 8 if the Canon is a 10. But I have yet to miss a shot (eg, AI servo) with the Sigma; it is simply quick enough for anything I shoot, indoors or outside.

I like and recommend both lenses. I think APS-C shooters should now seriously consider the Sigma over the Canon because of its perks and price, then use the left over money for other items.

BTW, if the Tamron 17-50 VC had their new USD AF in it (which would have FTM too), I'd be all over that lens. It was fantastic, save for the AF speed.

Thanks for the head's up on that bit about CPL filters working. I had a Sigi 17-50 and the front end rotated. I didn't know that the rotation of the focus ring should not cause frontal section to rotate. When a member of my local camera club told me that the rotation was preventing me from using polarizing filters, I gave it away and replaced it with Canon's 17-55. Had I know the sigi just needed to be repaired, I would have kept it as it met my needs. Live and learn.

One thing to remember...

People who are dissatisfied with their lenses/cameras or other gear are usually a lot more vocal than those persons satisfied with the gear...

At the time that I purchased my first Canon 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) lens, the internet was throbbing with complaints of that lens back-focusing. It appeared that every 70-200mm f/4L lens out there had this problem. I found out from a reputable friend in the photographic industry that only a very minute percentage of the 70-200mm f/4L lenses sold exhibited the back-focus problem.

LightRules wrote in post #11492655
Like I said, they are similar wide open, assuming good copies of both. In fact the Sigma might be a little sharper at f2.8.

Better a sharp lens in your hand then two on order

LightRules wrote in post #11492570
With rebate the Canon is 990 while the Sigma is 590 (at Abes). That's a huge difference (400). Without rebate the difference is even bigger.

I did see that the cheapest price right now is at Abe's. Have you ordered with them before? Everything on the up and up?

LightRules wrote in post #11492570
I'ved used/tested/owned over 30 copies of the Canon and recently had 4 copies of the Sigma in hand. I'm as familiar with the ins and outs of the Canon as anyone. The most significant strength of the Canon over the Sigma is its AF: speed, FTM, and overall locking accuracy. It's like a heat-seeking missle, just aim and it's locked on. Fantastic AF and IMO one of the fastest AF'ing lenses Canon makes.

That said, I am personally using the Sigma now (after owning many Canon units for several years). Optically they are similar (assuming good copies of both as I've had decentered issues with both and some other minor problems with each). I'll eventually put up some crops. Resolution is close, micro-contrast both very good, edge performance no significant difference. The Canon does a hair better with CA while the Sigma is quite a bit better with flare. Stabilization units are both effective for 3-4 stops.

I like the Sigma's size and build better, its zoom dampening much better, and of course the 4 years warranty is nice. In terms of AF, it's very good, probably an 8 if the Canon is a 10. But I have yet to miss a shot (eg, AI servo) with the Sigma; it is simply quick enough for anything I shoot, indoors or outside.

I like and recommend both lenses. I think APS-C shooters should now seriously consider the Sigma over the Canon because of its perks and price, then use the left over money for other items.

BTW, if the Tamron 17-50 VC had their new USD AF in it (which would have FTM too), I'd be all over that lens. It was fantastic, save for the AF speed.

Thank you for the in-depth review. Nice to hear from someone with experience with both of these lenses.

It seems that in your opinion, the Canon is as good or beats the Sigma in most every category? With that said, did you just decide to stick with the Sigma because of the better build and size and even though the Canon may have the edge in most categories, the Sigma has nearly identical in IQ? I guess it just felt better in your hands? Also, excuse my ignorance, but what is "zoom dampening?" Do you find that the focus ring rotating when autofocus activates is an issue? Do you ever have your hand too far down and interfere with it? Also, the full time manual focus, is that something that you would typically use when shooting video but not so much for standard static shots?

I like the idea of saving money and using the left over for other items. What other items would you recommend that I look at to get a more complete setup?

I'm not sure how much information these companies share about their products, but one thing I am worried about is going out and getting the Canon (which is around four years old now I think) and then a month later, they release a newer model that's built better, etc., and then I'm stuck with the old. Also, do you know if Tamron has plans to put their USD AF in the 17-50? I like the looks of that lens and have heard great things and see great shots, but the noisy/slower AF is a turn off to me.

Would it be possible to see some comparison shots from your Canon 17-55 and Sigma 17-50. I've seen shots from each, but not many good side by side comparison shots out there of the same object in the same light, etc.

I think that's all the questions I have at this point. Thank you again.

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.

The focusing ring rotates when focusing; the front element/front filter does not. So no problems with polarizing filters. I even use the lens with my Cokin P filters without a problem.

deronsizemore wrote in post #11493546
I did see that the cheapest price right now is at Abe's. Have you ordered with them before? Everything on the up and up?

The Sigma 17-50 OS that I ended up keeping was actually from Abes. Punch in "aaloyal" and also "loyalty15" and you'll get the 2 discounts that should put you right around $590 with free shipping. They do call you to ask if you want a filter and extra warranty, but just decline it and the lens ships right away.

It seems that in your opinion, the Canon is as good or beats the Sigma in most every category? With that said, did you just decide to stick with the Sigma because of the better build and size and even though the Canon may have the edge in most categories, the Sigma has nearly identical in IQ? I guess it just felt better in your hands? Also, excuse my ignorance, but what is "zoom dampening?" Do you find that the focus ring rotating when autofocus activates is an issue? Do you ever have your hand too far down and interfere with it?

The Canon beats the Sigma in AF speed and also gives you FTM. That's the main perk. I like the Sigma better for its smaller size, zoom dampening (meaning there is a little tension when you zoom in and out that makes for a better feel and smoother motion), and longer warranty. Optically, they are very similar, though I would even argue the Sigma might be sharper overall at f2.8 (at least the best copies I've used for both). And no, I don't find it a problem that the focus ring turns during AF; my left hand is never touching that part as its always holding the zoom ring while shooting.

I like the idea of saving money and using the left over for other items. What other items would you recommend that I look at to get a more complete setup?

Sigma 30 f1.4

I'm not sure how much information these companies share about their products, but one thing I am worried about is going out and getting the Canon (which is around four years old now I think) and then a month later, they release a newer model that's built better, etc., and then I'm stuck with the old. Also, do you know if Tamron has plans to put their USD AF in the 17-50? I like the looks of that lens and have heard great things and see great shots, but the noisy/slower AF is a turn off to me.

Lame reason not to get the Canon 17-55. It's still a superb lens and don't hold your breath waiting for a MKII version of it. No one expects a newer model of this lens anytime soon...no one. And I have no idea about Tamron putting their USD into the 17-50 VC. Don't hold your breath for that either. Focus on getting what is available now and not wondering about the future.

Would it be possible to see some comparison shots from your Canon 17-55 and Sigma 17-50. I've seen shots from each, but not many good side by side comparison shots out there of the same object in the same light, etc.

Check out Bob Atkins' review below. It's pretty close to what I found. The Sigma's I've used were actually better than the Canon's at 50mm. But overall I agree with the review in terms of pros and cons.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …_Sigma_17-50_review4.html

ABC

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.

Ok, if that has been the case for you, that's good.

While I was watching the pricing on the 70-200 variations, I noticed that both Tamron and Sigma used lenses were around $500, off from $700 to $800. Canon's 70-200 F4/IS L were around $900-$1000, off from $1150. That is a significant percentage drop difference.

Same thing with the Sigma 150-500 OS. New at $999, used at $600-$700. Canon 100-400L new at $1600, used at $1400-$1500.

Admittedly, I only watched for a few months, and only at a limited selection of lenses. But for that segment, I feel is was pretty consistent.

rjmcinnis wrote in post #11494072
Ok, if that has been the case for you, that's good.

While I was watching the pricing on the 70-200 variations, I noticed that both Tamron and Sigma used lenses were around $500, off from $700 to $800. Canon's 70-200 F4/IS L were around $900-$1000, off from $1150. That is a significant percentage drop difference.

Same thing with the Sigma 150-500 OS. New at $999, used at $600-$700. Canon 100-400L new at $1600, used at $1400-$1500.

Admittedly, I only watched for a few months, and only at a limited selection of lenses. But for that segment, I feel is was pretty consistent.

Why would someone pay $1000 for a used lens when they can buy it new for $ 1150 , doesn't make much sense to me . Even $900 is pushing it.

Thanks for the feedback on those lens LightRules !

Thanks! I actually did see those two discount codes the other day when I was checking out the Sigma on Abe's. It gave me the "aaloyal" automatically upon checkout.

This will really show my inexperience, but if I go with a 17-50mm lens (or in that range) on my T1i, that's effectively a 27-80 focal range. So, why would I then want to buy an additional 30mm prime lens? I know the 1.4 is huge factor and it would be a lot better in low light, but is that the only reason?

Good point.

LightRules wrote:
Check out Bob Atkins' review below. It's pretty close to what I found. The Sigma's I've used were actually better than the Canon's at 50mm. But overall I agree with the review in terms of pros and cons.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om/photography...0_rev​iew4.html

I came across that review a few days ago, but wasn't sure if what I was reading was accurate or not. I had came across a Ken Rockwell review as well on a lens and I've learned that the general tone toward Ken Rockwell here on the forums isn't a positive one. So, being new to all this, I don't know the reviews I should trust and the ones I should take with a grain of salt.

From his review and comparisons, it's nearly impossible to pick out differences in the two.

In the Chromatic Aberration section of his review, he mentions that the Sigma "shows slightly more intense colors than the Canon." Is he saying "intense" as in "better" or as in "worse?" Or is it neither good nor bad, just is what it is and he simply pointed it out?

His talk of Sigma's past reliability and compatibility issues is somewhat scary for me. We all know Canon's reputation and quality and while I know some defective lenses probably exist, it sounds like Sigma has had some problems with their quality in the past. Of course, like he says, this may not be an issue now as their new line of lenses look to be built like tanks, but you never know.

He also talks about some zoom creep with the Canon 17-55. Did you experience this with your 17-55(s)? What about any zoom creep with the Sigma. I know it has a locking feature on it, but that's only at 17mm, correct?

Again, thank for all the valuable info. Definitely aiding in making a decision.

rjmcinnis wrote in post #11494072
Same thing with the Sigma 150-500 OS. New at $999, used at $600-$700. Canon 100-400L new at $1600, used at $1400-$1500.

I see 100-400L for $1000-$1200 fairly often and the average asking price for Sigma 150-500mm is $750-$850. But hey, if someone wants to sell me their 150-500mm for $600 please shoot me a PM.

Canon 17 55 ftw! It surely wont disappoint..