Worth the upgrade??

I am thinking about upgrading from my 18-55 IS kit lens, to the Sigma 18-50 EX HSM lens or possibly the Tamron one, but I like the EX build and HSM. I just recently got a 10-20 Sigma EX and I really like it alot. The build quality, HSM focus and colors are now making my kit lens feel a little crappier both physically and pictorially. Also since the WA Sigma is slow and the kit lens is slower I was thinking 2.8 across the field would be a nice even if it is stopped sown some for quality. So the big question is, is this lens worth the net $300 difference from my current 18-55 IS?? And if so or not, by a little or alot?

Thanks Guys, I have learned alot reading on here

If you can afford it go for it. I would have to think about it what to do with the kit lens to keep from having seriously overlapping lengths.

Joe Ravenstein wrote in post #11548951
If you can afford it go for it. I would have to think about it what to do with the kit lens to keep from having seriously overlapping lengths.

Sell it... It's an inexpensive upgrade from the non-IS version.

I have the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 and the difference in quality is very noticable. The Sigma will be equaly as noticable. You could sell the Kit lens, or keep it tucked away, for when you decide to upgrade your body in a few years. Then you can put it back onto the current body, and either sell it as a kit, or have a backup, or give it to your spouse/kids/family member to use.

--Evan

Do it .. The sigma ana Tamron 17-50 are excellent lenses.

Yeah, I was thinking for the $100 I can maybe get for it I am better off keeping it. The way things are going with me taking pictures I will have a 60/7D before too long and a family member will inherit the XSi with that lens. Either way, I got an XSi with 8K shutter releases and the kit and 55-250 for $500 on Ebay in like perfect condition so I am not worried about it.

If a Sigma EX is close to half of what a Canon lens is, I would think that my hopefully shrinking lack of skill would be more of an issue than the quality difference. It is hard for me at this stage to justify getting Canon glass when I can get more still quality lenses for the same price and work on being creative with them.

What about the Tamron 17-85 2.8 - 4.5?

Beni N. wrote in post #11549450
What about the Tamron 17-85 2.8 - 4.5?

If it's suitable with what you shoot, buy it.
But I recommend the 17-50 though.

I have bought both the Tamron 17-50 and the 28-75 as a replacement to the 18-55is and was pleased with both of them. I finally settled on the 28-75.

I find myself shooting mostly in Ap mode and do not have a fast all around so the 2.8 constant aperature is what got me headed down this road. You know, indoor Christmas pics that I had to shoot at 1/30 shutter speeds. I just defaulted to the 50 and that is too close until I get a mansion with a 1200 ft. living room or only want shoulder up portrait shots of my kids.

So the sharpness and IQ would be something I would see a difference in from either the Sigma or the Tamron 2.8 over the 18-55 canon?? I guess that is the question as to if it is worth upgrading to an intermediate lens. The aperature has me half sold, IQ and sharpness difference would be the other half.