Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 Canon Version - Bad Copy?

K

k114l3d

Suspended / Banned
Messages
78
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

I have just got my sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens and im unsure on what to look out for to check if its a bad copy?

Alot of people have said its a cracking lens provided you get a good copy but im not sure what are the key features to check for?

In normal conditions its not really that much better to my canon 18-55mm kit lens, however i would imagine it earns its money in low light.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated :)
 
Phil Young said:
Maybe high expectations? I wouldn't put my 70-200mm VC much past my old 18-55mm in terms of sharpness.
Click to expand...

That is a joke or typographical error, right?

k114l3d said:
Hi guys,

I have just got my sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens and im unsure on what to look out for to check if its a bad copy?

Alot of people have said its a cracking lens provided you get a good copy but im not sure what are the key features to check for?

In normal conditions its not really that much better to my canon 18-55mm kit lens, however i would imagine it earns its money in low light.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated :)
Click to expand...

things like focusing correctly on anything from your friend standing close by all the way to a distant house, and asses the sharpness across the whole frame from one corner to the other.
 
k114l3d said:
Hi guys,

I have just got my sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens and im unsure on what to look out for to check if its a bad copy?

Alot of people have said its a cracking lens provided you get a good copy but im not sure what are the key features to check for?

In normal conditions its not really that much better to my canon 18-55mm kit lens, however i would imagine it earns its money in low light.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated :)
Click to expand...

If you have the IS version kit lens you aren't going to see a huge improvement to the Sigma. Have a look at the review of the IS kit lens on photozone.de
 
k114l3d said:
Hi guys,

I have just got my sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens and im unsure on what to look out for to check if its a bad copy?

Alot of people have said its a cracking lens provided you get a good copy but im not sure what are the key features to check for?

In normal conditions its not really that much better to my canon 18-55mm kit lens, however i would imagine it earns its money in low light.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated :)
Click to expand...

What is the problem you are noticing about your Sigma vs the kit lens (sharpness, colour, contrast?). I suppose the important thing that a lot of people forget to remember, having better kit doesn't make you a better photographer!
 
k114l3d said:
I have just got my sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens and im unsure on what to look out for to check if its a bad copy?
Click to expand...

Just use it and see what your images are like as surely that will tell you how good it is. But getting a new lens and immediately thinking that it might be a bad copy doesn't sound like a good way to start.
 
DaveKing said:
What is the problem you are noticing about your Sigma vs the kit lens (sharpness, colour, contrast?). I suppose the important thing that a lot of people forget to remember, having better kit doesn't make you a better photographer!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the responses guys. Im not really noticing any problems, just on comparison shots the 2 images from the 2 lenses look quite similar. maybe the sigma has slight more sharpness at 100% crops but thats about it.

maybe im just being paranoid as there are mixed reviews about this lens and quite a few people have sent them back due to being bad copies.

i felt this lens would really stand out against my kit lens (which is a mark 3 btw) but it seems to be just the same
 
The benefit of the sigma won't be sharpness over a mk3 18-55. it will be an extra 2 stops of light.

Compare them at 50mm, f4 (sigma) & f8 (canon) and you'll see they will be similar in sharpness.
 
Phil Young said:
The benefit of the sigma won't be sharpness over a mk3 18-55. it will be an extra 2 stops of light.

Compare them at 50mm, f4 (sigma) & f8 (canon) and you'll see they will be similar in sharpness.
Click to expand...

ah ok then. that may be my error in judgement then. i thought as it has FLD glass it would be alot better than the 18-55. this lens has been compared to the canon 17-55 2.8 lens and is supposed to be very close.
 
k114l3d said:
this lens has been compared to the canon 17-55 2.8 lens and is supposed to be very close.
Click to expand...

So has the IS kit lens ;).

Canon 18-55 IS kit review said:
Its resolution characteristic is similar to the (much higher priced) EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS at comparable aperture settings, quite a bit better than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS and naturally vastly improved over its non-IS predecessor!
Click to expand...
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review?start=2
 
k114l3d said:
ah ok then. that may be my error in judgement then. i thought as it has FLD glass it would be alot better than the 18-55. this lens has been compared to the canon 17-55 2.8 lens and is supposed to be very close.
Click to expand...
And if the 17-55 was f3.5 - f5.6 it would probably be the same in optical quality...but it has a wider aperture so will look super sharp when stopped down ;)

My old 18-55 was as sharp, if not sharper, wide open than my my tamron 17-50. Difference is, I can now shoot at f2.8

There will be die hard gear enthusiasts that rubbish kit lenses but today, they're all good in optics ;)
 
ah ok then. i didnt know that. i thought the better build quality and the £300 price tag would be a great difference when compared to the kit lens. but on the same settings it seems there isnt much in it then
 
Phil Young said:
And if the 17-55 was f3.5 - f5.6 it would probably be the same in optical quality...but it has a wider aperture so will look super sharp when stopped down ;)

My old 18-55 was as sharp, if not sharper, wide open than my my tamron 17-50. Difference is, I can now shoot at f2.8

There will be die hard gear enthusiasts that rubbish kit lenses but today, they're all good in optics ;)
Click to expand...


Take a few portraits at f2.8 and you'll notice the difference!
 
ok i have the sigma 2.8 IS , for two years now and all i can say is that it's a wonderful lens whether you have a good copy or not you should be able to tell the difference i certainly could from the canon 18/75 kit lens i had ...
 
bain said:
ok i have the sigma 2.8 IS , for two years now and all i can say is that it's a wonderful lens whether you have a good copy or not you should be able to tell the difference i certainly could from the canon 18/75 kit lens i had ...
Click to expand...

If you mean the 17-85, you'll get no argument, it was an overrated lens with mediocre optical qualities and (from it's photozone review) "it shows the most pronounced barrel distortion of all (supposedly) corrected lenses tested to date and that's by quite a margin".

From my quote in post 11

Canon 18-55 IS kit review said:
Its resolution characteristic is similar to the (much higher priced) EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS at comparable aperture settings, quite a bit better than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS and naturally vastly improved over its non-IS predecessor!

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review?start=2
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top