Canon 17-55 vs Sigma 17-50

my copy of the 17-55 is alot sharper than the ones posted especially at 55mm...ill do a hand held test of one when i get home...

Received my 17-50 a few days ago. I have to say that I'm really impressed with it. Although I didn't end up ordering both lenses (Canon 17-55 and Sigma 17-50), I just got the Sigma. I figured if I didn't like it, I'd send it back and get something else. I have zero complaints so far. Feels like a solid piece of equipment, autofocus is fast and accurate and the OS feature seems to work very well. So far, the "cons" I've heard don't seem to be a big deal, e.g., focus ring rotating during autofocus and the lack of full time manual. It could be that I just don't know what I'm missing though.

Of course, this is just from my novice viewpoint.

Here's a couple images I took today: https://photography-on-the.net …?p=11601884&pos​tcount=316

No processing; straight from the camera.

deronsizemore wrote in post #11602046
Received my 17-50 a few days ago....

Congrats. I just ordered this same lens last week, and it's supposed to be here on Monday (altho I will be at work and not at home to sign for it. So I'll have to sign the sticker and wait for a re-drop). I only have an XT to test it on, but I also have a new 50D on order that should be here in about a week or so.

Crossing my fingers that I get a "good copy". I saw a post, don't remember where, where someone's was soft, but after micro-adjusting his shots were really sharp at both ends of the zoom range.

I chose this because of the price, the size, and the weight.

Since my wife does not even know yet that I ordered the 50D, it's gonna be a really long wait before I get the 10-22mm that I also want.

glennr wrote in post #11602169
Crossing my fingers that I get a "good copy". I saw a post, don't remember where, where someone's was soft, but after micro-adjusting his shots were really sharp at both ends of the zoom range.

I think you'll be fine. Typically when someone is happy with a product or service, they keep it to themselves. But, when they're not happy, they make sure the world knows about it. I'm sure there are some bad copies of the lens just as there are with any lens, but they are few. There's always the user factor too. Could be user error in a few of those complaint cases too. Just never know. Good luck.

I think I am going to get this over the Canon 17-55, this review is helping. I thought about the canon since it will be my main lens, but I just had a great sigma experiance. I recently got a 10-20 Sigma EX and I was terrified of all the soft/focus comments, but I saw so many good reviews I figured I had to try it. I am very pleased with it, I will use it for my companies website and I have found that the lens is super well built, the HSM is awesome (compared to my low end canons) and it is tack sharp in the center and that falls off a bit on the edges at 100% crop, but so does the canon 10-22 from what I have seen in reviews. So I guess I got a "good copy" becuase I have as sharp of pics as any review I have seen. From what is on some forums you would think that 1 out of every 4 Sigmas is a "bad copy" and I agree that satisfied people don't say anything and people with bad copies will always let it be known. Plus if you buy it new, you can just send it back if it is not right so really that was my comfort in trying my first sigma EX and I have no problems getting another one and the raving reviews of this lens are solidifying that for me.

But take that with a grain of salt. I usually shoot that lens at F8 or so and I am just a noob and other than my above average vision I guess I am not very qualified to review a lens.......But I have seen some of my pics compared to some of the 10-22 posted here and the sigma is just as sharp or sharper to my untrianed eye. Well, sharper when I do my part

I am getting the 17-50 when I can afford it and I know it will be a welcome upgrade from my kit lens. More pics guys!!!!!!

The Canon seems to be worth the price, just too bad they don't include a hood eh? However, with deals like the Amazon 10% off sigma stuff going on right now, or the Abe's deals where it's 500-something, that's pretty tempting. From the shots I've seen the Sigma seems to do well. It seems like the Canon is better in the corners, though.

Nick3434 wrote in post #11604186
I think I am going to get this over the Canon 17-55, this review is helping. I thought about the canon since it will be my main lens, but I just had a great sigma experiance. I recently got a 10-20 Sigma EX and I was terrified of all the soft/focus comments, but I saw so many good reviews I figured I had to try it. I am very pleased with it, I will use it for my companies website and I have found that the lens is super well built, the HSM is awesome (compared to my low end canons) and it is tack sharp in the center and that falls off a bit on the edges at 100% crop, but so does the canon 10-22 from what I have seen in reviews. So I guess I got a "good copy" becuase I have as sharp of pics as any review I have seen. From what is on some forums you would think that 1 out of every 4 Sigmas is a "bad copy" and I agree that satisfied people don't say anything and people with bad copies will always let it be known. Plus if you buy it new, you can just send it back if it is not right so really that was my comfort in trying my first sigma EX and I have no problems getting another one and the raving reviews of this lens are solidifying that for me.

But take that with a grain of salt. I usually shoot that lens at F8 or so and I am just a noob and other than my above average vision I guess I am not very qualified to review a lens.......But I have seen some of my pics compared to some of the 10-22 posted here and the sigma is just as sharp or sharper to my untrianed eye. Well, sharper when I do my part

I am getting the 17-50 when I can afford it and I know it will be a welcome upgrade from my kit lens. More pics guys!!!!!!

I think you'll definitely like the Sigma. Like you said, even if you don't, send it back. It was mentioned previously, but the Sigma also comes with a lens hood and nice case as well. The lens hood alone on the Canon 17-55 is around an extra $50. Not sure if you read through the all pages of the thread or not, but here's a good review from someone with a lot of experience with both lenses: https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11492570&po​stcount=32

and another:

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11535171&po​stcount=38

Just received the 17-50 last night. I haven't really had a chance to do much testing, but overall I am very impressed with the build quality. The speed and accuracy of the focus is something I was not expecting - it's very quiet and fast, and I have not noticed any hunting in low light. The OS on mine seems to give me mostly around 2 stops (I am very shaky anyway) and it is so silent that I wouldn't know it was on if i didn't see the image freeze in the viewfinder. I can say that the turning of the focus ring is something I am noticing and it did catch my fingers the first few times I tried it.

I was a little shocked by the weight and density of this thing, but I have never had a lens like this, so I don't have anything to compare it to. If the 17-55 is that much bigger and heavier then I think I made the right purchase for me anyway (I am a small skinny guy).

Oh yeah, on my XT this thing is a real bruiser. Looks like I have the end of a cannon barrel mounted!!

Overall I am pleased with this purchase, and I am guessing that this lens will live on my 50D when it gets here (it has shipped!!).

glennr wrote in post #11617142
If the 17-55 is that much bigger and heavier then I think I made the right purchase for me anyway.

I thought the same thing. This lens isn't small anyway (well, compared to the 50/1.8), but the 17-55 is supposed to be even larger than the Sigma (an inch or so if I'm not mistaken). I think that would make it seem REALLY large. Sigma feels good and is a good weight and size I think.

deronsizemore wrote in post #11617200
I thought the same thing. This lens isn't small anyway (well, compared to the 50/1.8), but the 17-55 is supposed to be even larger than the Sigma (an inch or so if I'm not mistaken). I think that would make it seem REALLY large. Sigma feels good and is a good weight and size I think.

The 17-55 isn't so big its awkward. Its just fine using it as a walk around.

mdgrwl wrote in post #11617225
The 17-55 isn't so big its awkward. Its just fine using it as a walk around.

Oh, cool. I've never actually held one. Just going by the reviews that I've read.

Just bumping this thread to see what people think now. It seems that opinions have changed a lot on the Sigma 17-50 (favorably) over time, and now the Canon costs almost double the price. The Sigma can be had for $600-$670 brand new, with hood, while the canon is running $1,100-$1,170, breaking the $1,200 barrier if you want a hood. Does anybody truly believe that is a premium worth paying?