Sigma 17-70 vs Canon 17-85IS

ShootinJack

ShootinJack

Suspended / Banned
Messages
564
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
A friend of mine has recently upgraded to a 50D and has allowed me to loan his old 350D with kit lens. I am contemplating upgrading the lens to either a Sigma 17-70 or a Canon 17-85IS.
Those of you who have experiences with either lens, could you share them with me and post some shots too please?

Many thanks
 
Hello,

I bought the Canon 17-85 IS just over a year ago and went on holiday and used it as my general walk around lens...if your shooting 17-50 it sucks...the amount of chromatic abberations are rediculous..I sold the lens and bought the Sigma 17-70 DG...WOW! What a fantastic lens. I know you don't get the IS, but the image quality is very good and its much lighter than the Canon. I am finding more and more that the SIGMAS are worth a good look...my last 3 lenses have been SIGMAS and i have no complaints about them.

As for my trip, about 3000 of my shots were garbage due to the Canon 17-85IS lens....get the SIGMA

Thegary
 
hi jack

i have been contemplating the 17-85IS for a while now, but if you read my thread about it just a few down in "equipment" then you will see why im not getting it anymore.
 
I have a 17-70, which was a superb upgrade from the kit lens I had previously. f2.8 is lovely to have at the wide end. A friend of mine has the 17-85, and while it delivers pretty good results he says he misses not having as wide an aperture (even with the IS).

I'm actually selling it soon if you're interested!
 
My misses has the 17-70 and to be honest, wish i had kept it for myself and given her my canon 17-85is! Haha!
 
i have the 17-85. missed the lower apertures so bought a siggy 24-70. worthwile upgrade, dont use much below 24mm though
 
I would imagine they are on a par regarding image quality. I never really used the f2.8 at the wider end of the sigma and the distortion at 17mm was quite significant. The sigma is a nice lens but I never really warmed to it, not sure whether is was lack of sharpness or something else...I'd try a few within the price range, including the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and perhaps the tamron 28-75mm which is a cracking lens and the sharpest I've used once stopped down a bit.
 
Hi,

I have owned both and there isn't a great deal in it, the IS on the Canon is handy, but the Sigma is much sharper in the centre and I also preferred the colours from the Sigma, the Canon colours/contrast etc were very similar to the kit lens, where as on the Sigma the blues and greens were much stronger.

Only thing I didn't like about the Sigma was the lack of HSM which means the lens turns in your hand when focussing.

In the end I sold both, but if was asked to buy only 1 right now, it would be the Sigma.

Mike.
 
Definitely the Sigma for me, it was a great lens in the time I owned it. Replaced it now, trying to sell it but can't post in classifieds yet ;)

The Sigma is certainly better for anyone serious about IQ, the Canon's only advantages are reach, IS and build quality really, maybe the USM.

The macro is very useful to have too :)
 
I have been really impressed by the macro on the 17-70 actually. My misses just took some random flower shots and the image quality is really impressive
 
thegary said:
Hello,

I bought the Canon 17-85 IS just over a year ago and went on holiday and used it as my general walk around lens...if your shooting 17-50 it sucks...the amount of chromatic abberations are rediculous.
Click to expand...

Maybe you and I have different thresholds of tolerance for CA but in my 17-85 I have no problems with CA or IQ, other than barrel distortion at the wide end, and I can fix or ignore that as I like. Here are a couple of examples shot wide, with fairly punishing light and contrast in the branches and I have no complaints at all....

These are resized at 25% and accompanied by 100% crops. There are no edits - just Lightroom defaults for sharpening etc..

Is this not sharp? 26mm, f/4.5
3008864254_6d64dd7002_o.jpg
3008026411_5571b172ec_o.jpg


How bad is the CA here? 17mm, f/4.5.
3008026321_bf68d85114_o.jpg
3008864878_50427d2146_o.jpg


Agreed, at 100% there is some nasty purple fringing under the thicker branches, but in the full photograph the CA is pretty much invisible. Many lenses would struggle with some CA when viewed at 100%. I don't think the results here are bad at all for a lens with such an evil reputation.
 
ShootinJack said:
That is quite bad purple fringing. Does anyone have any similar samples from the Sigma?
Click to expand...

OK, here's a 50% crop from the same shot, again with no PP to add sharpening or tune out fringing. Viewing the whole picture at 50% on my monitor would yield an image a little larger than A4, so I think this image is more than up to the task of being printed, as far as lens IQ is concerned, at sizes up to 12" x 8". Do you disagree?

3008129723_bebd5d905f_o.jpg
 
thanks for the post tdodd, that just really brought home how much i shouldn't buy that lens.
 
Well I'm surprised at your reaction, because I'm really not seeing a problem with IQ that would spoil any normal photograph viewed at normal sizes. Either way, I'm glad you got the answer you needed.

Just so I can understand better, what exactly has put you off - sharpness/softness? flare? CA? something else? Don't forget that these photos are examples from the weaker end of the lens under pretty harsh lighting conditions for any lens, never mind a 5X consumer grade zoom. Also, I know the photos have little photographic merit. I posted them to show an example of how the lens fares in tough conditions. Don't confuse lousy photography with the lens being poor. I'd be curious to know which alternative lens offers IS, USM, a 5X zoom range and better IQ for £235 new.

Remember that Sigma does not have a sterling reputation for reliability or AF calibration accuracy and may need a chip change a generation or two down the line of Canon bodies to continue working.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top