Canon 17-55 2.8 or Sigma 17-50 2.8?

M

magirus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
568
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all. Sold some gear to finance a lens as per the thread title, either Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, or Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM. So, the usual questions....

Is the Canon worth the extra money? Is the Canon better built? Is there any appreciable difference in image quality? etc, etc......

Thanks in advance for any input. (I've read the reviews of course but I value the opinions of folks here who own and use the lenses)
 
The Canon is the better lens, there's no real question about that. I've never used the Sigma 17-50, but I'm a huge fan of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

Whether it's worth the extra is a matter of opinion really. The Tamron is very close in optical performance, but the Canon focusses slightly faster, and silently. At these focal lengths, I don't really rate IS as a deal-breaker.

If you've got the cash, and want the best, go for the Canon. If you don't mind having a lens that isn't quite as sharp (but still very, very sharp nonetheless) and want to save yourself a chunk of cash, go for the sigma/tamron.

Chris
 
I haven't used the sigma or the tamron
i have the canon efs 17-55 f2.8 it impressive lens both in function and size
The quality of this lens is far superior to the others
They also hold their value extremely well
 
I hired the Canon, loved it, but funds were limited so I bought the Sigma. It too was a lovely lens, but if you can afford the Canon, I'd choose it everytime without fail.
 
I think everyone agrees that Canon 17-55 is impressive. ( I'm not sure that impressive in size is a good thing, though, lol.. ) However, Sigma 17-50 also has pretty decent reviews. some say the IQ is similar/close to the Canon. HSM is also quick and quiet (not saying it's as good as USM). Most say the build of the Sigma is better than Canon, and it also weighs a little less and is a little smaller. I'm seeing it as a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 with OS and better AF, which costs less than the Canon.

That said, I haven't used them, only tried some in store. I'm planning to buy the Sigma when I go aboard later this year (hopefully for around £400). Therefore, I would love to be corrected by people who have used both of them. If you think Canon is much better in some ways, please share your opinions. I'm not sure what to think of it when you just say, "if you have money, buy Canon, it's always the best."
 
I really urge you to look out for the non-VC version of the Tamron 17-50/2.8. They are very reasonably priced (I paid something around 320€ for mine if memory serves) and are completely up there. A few months back I borrowed a Sigma 17-70 because I thought the extra reach would come in handy some times but I was on one hand shocked at how bad it was and on the other my satisfaction with the Tamron 17-50 was renewed.

I'm not sure about the VC version but I seem to remember that they got mixed reviews on here when they were introduced. You might want to do some further research before purchasing one of those.

I will say, though, that I have not tried the Sigma 17-50.
 
Thanks guys, food for thought. I 'll probably be able to afford the Canon so I think that is looking favourite.
 
I bought the Sigma and am absolutely thrilled with it. Read the reviews of both lenses and couldnt justify the expense of the Canon. It sits in the middle of my lens lineup and was purchased for one particular shoot and hasnt been off the camera since.
 
I've got the sigma (nikon fit), absolutely love it and highly recommend it.
 
Hi,
this is my first post in the forum

I'm having the same dilemma! I've been thinking Canon VS Sigma (and lately Tamron) for the past moth and still couldn't pull the trigger. I read a LOT of reviews but still can't make my mind. to summarize

Canon
Pros:
great sharpness (in the centre for the whole range of stops and focal lengths)
Okay picture quality at the frame edges
well controlled distortion
great autofocus
solid performing stabilization

Cons:
chromatic aberration (especially f/2.8)
large vignetting (all focal ranges)
large size
very expensive
slight vulnerability for flare in wide angle


Sigma

Pros:
high build quality and very solid barrel
sensational sharpness of images in the frame centre (even at the maximum aperture)
decent image quality at the edge of the frame
chromatic aberration well-controlled (at longer focal lengths)
silent, quick and accurate autofocus
efficient image stabilization
good Guarantee from Sigma (three year)

Cons:
chromatic aberration (at the shortest focal length)
focus ring moves during focusing (and no Manual focussing in AF mode)
image quality at the maximum aperture at corners is not good


Regards,
Mohammed
 
take a look at:
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/
for shots taken by all the lenses(though it has the Sigma listed as 18mm-50mm)

I'm another one to recommend the Canon. I got a 2nd hand Tamron(non-VC) off ebay. Rogue copy or just not as good a lens as people make out?
 
I have the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and it is a fantastic lens. My friend has the 17-55mm IS and I feel it matches it for sharpness. There is quite a lot of distortion in the Sigma at 18mm, although this is only a quick fix in Lightroom. Also 17mm is quite a bit wider than the quoted 18mm.
 
If you can consider the Canon, get the Canon. There are only a few exceptions when it comes to third party lenses being chosen over Canon.
 
I have the Canon 17-55mm and my daughter has the Tamron 17-50mm VC, both very good and not sure I would pay the extra again should anything ever happen to my lens.
 
based on the pics in this website Link

Comparing Sigma and Tamron to Canon 17-55. It seems that both Sigma 17-50 and Tamron 17-50 non VC have better resolution in center and mid fram, but worse resolution at corners

What's strange is that the VC version of Tamron has worse resolution!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top