"Sigma 18-50 outtested Canon 17-40 L (AND 24-70 /2.8 L)"
This is not my conclusion, of the lens or of the article, but the Sigma is a good lens and it's interesting to see comparisons.
"At half the cost, the Sigma 18-50 does better than the 17-40 /4 L
in different areas...
It has less barrell distortion, kills it regarding vignetting...
and even has better resolution... and f/2.8 on top of that.... ", Ove Sentlig
Thanks for your comments. Understand that I am also a fan of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM and I believe it's in a class above this lens. It is the definitive interior and landscape zoom lens for EOS cameras. Eventually the 16-35 will be part of my collection and kit.
The Sigma 18-50mm f 2.8 is designed to compete more directly with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM and I think they are very comparable. They both provide similar characteristics and each has its advantages and problems. I suspect that quality control may be a problem for both lens lines because of the different experiences people are having. I do like the extra zoom range of the Sigma and I don't think the CA/PF issues will be a problem for how I intend to use the lens, and the problem is largely correctable in software when it occurs. The extra f stop on the Sigma might also be handy in available light. All in all, this is the right lens for me.
Since I have the dRebel XT, I will also desire an even wider zoom or prime lens but, ... that's another discussion thread.
Ok, I'm bumping this old thread because I've recently been looking at this lens. However, I'm also interested in the Sigma 17-70mm. I did some searches for the 17-70mm but didn't see any real reviews. Does anyone have experience with these two lenses?
bored? check out my photo site...and if you have the time, leave a comment or rate some pictures while you're there.
Canon 20D | Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di LD IF | Canon 50mm f/1.8 II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
yep, I've read that review. I was originally looking at the 18-50 until I read this...
Even better than that it delivers a performance which matches and sometimes even exceeds more expensive lenses. This includes the in-house competition (AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX) as well as genuine brand lenses (such as the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS).
...thats what got me really looking at this lens. I've also read some peoples opinions of it being better than the canon 17-40L. Still I thought I'd ask on here, cuz I'm familiar with the people on here a bit and trust everyone a bit more than other random people on the internet.
bored? check out my photo site...and if you have the time, leave a comment or rate some pictures while you're there.
Canon 20D | Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di LD IF | Canon 50mm f/1.8 II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
yep, I've read that review. I was originally looking at the 18-50 until I read this...
...thats what got me really looking at this lens. I've also read some peoples opinions of it being better than the canon 17-40L. Still I thought I'd ask on here, cuz I'm familiar with the people on here a bit and trust everyone a bit more than other random people on the internet.
Note that the Sigma 17-70mm is not a constant aperture lens. By 40mm you are at f4, and then f4.5 at 70mm. That said, this lens appears to do very well with resolution across the range, better than the 18-50mm beyond 40mm wide open, although they are both great at f5.6.
"I still think my very good copy of 18-50 EX f2.8 (after 2 bad ones) is sharper, contrastier and crispier than 17-70 at any focal length at wide apretures. When you look at 18-50 EX image (or print) there's almost a prime-type "wow" factor which 17-70 somehow lacks though it's very hard to pinpoint it. Though color tone of 17-70 is definetly more neutral than slightly warmish 18-50. Optically both lens is way better, imo, than 17-85 IS which I also tried fro a week.
Where 17-70 wins over 18-50 EX is price and, yes, versatility - awesome and fun macro capability and extra 20mm on tele. All this while maintaining pretty decent IQ for the price and even having f2.8 at 17-19mm (after which it quickly jumps to f3.5 and up)."
The price at Sigma4Less.com is $350, so it would seem to be a great value.
What-the-heck, if you don't need the constant aperture, and you do need the extra focal length, I say "go for it".
Comments
This is not my conclusion, of the lens or of the article, but the Sigma is a good lens and it's interesting to see comparisons.
"At half the cost, the Sigma 18-50 does better than the 17-40 /4 L
in different areas...
It has less barrell distortion, kills it regarding vignetting...
and even has better resolution... and f/2.8 on top of that.... ", Ove Sentlig
Full comments, and links, here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=14628053
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=16922
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks for throwing up shots from the lens.
I'm a big fan of the 16-35. The Sigma compares reasonably well.
Love to see some more when you've got the time.
Ian
Thanks for your comments. Understand that I am also a fan of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM and I believe it's in a class above this lens. It is the definitive interior and landscape zoom lens for EOS cameras. Eventually the 16-35 will be part of my collection and kit.
The Sigma 18-50mm f 2.8 is designed to compete more directly with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM and I think they are very comparable. They both provide similar characteristics and each has its advantages and problems. I suspect that quality control may be a problem for both lens lines because of the different experiences people are having. I do like the extra zoom range of the Sigma and I don't think the CA/PF issues will be a problem for how I intend to use the lens, and the problem is largely correctable in software when it occurs. The extra f stop on the Sigma might also be handy in available light. All in all, this is the right lens for me.
Since I have the dRebel XT, I will also desire an even wider zoom or prime lens but, ... that's another discussion thread.
Thanks,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Interesting lens...
...thats what got me really looking at this lens. I've also read some peoples opinions of it being better than the canon 17-40L. Still I thought I'd ask on here, cuz I'm familiar with the people on here a bit and trust everyone a bit more than other random people on the internet.
Note that the Sigma 17-70mm is not a constant aperture lens. By 40mm you are at f4, and then f4.5 at 70mm. That said, this lens appears to do very well with resolution across the range, better than the 18-50mm beyond 40mm wide open, although they are both great at f5.6.
Samples at PBase look good:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/17_70_28_45_dc_macro
with a full size sample (click on the "Original"):
http://www.pbase.com/image/58359540
This comment from "Klopus"
"I still think my very good copy of 18-50 EX f2.8 (after 2 bad ones) is sharper, contrastier and crispier than 17-70 at any focal length at wide apretures. When you look at 18-50 EX image (or print) there's almost a prime-type "wow" factor which 17-70 somehow lacks though it's very hard to pinpoint it. Though color tone of 17-70 is definetly more neutral than slightly warmish 18-50. Optically both lens is way better, imo, than 17-85 IS which I also tried fro a week.
Where 17-70 wins over 18-50 EX is price and, yes, versatility - awesome and fun macro capability and extra 20mm on tele. All this while maintaining pretty decent IQ for the price and even having f2.8 at 17-19mm (after which it quickly jumps to f3.5 and up)."
The price at Sigma4Less.com is $350, so it would seem to be a great value.
What-the-heck, if you don't need the constant aperture, and you do need the extra focal length, I say "go for it".
Just keep us posted.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums