Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma 17-70 versus Canon KIT 18-55 - quite a surprise

Go to last post
I

indol

Active member
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Location
Wien, AT
I just did the test with my canon kit lense 18-55 (3,5-5,6)II and got those results:
  • 17mm Sigma is really more wide than 18mm canon
  • not big difference in optical quality between those lenses in the range of 18mm-55mm (=Sigma is not better in this range) except PLUS one aperture step - but it is soft. See Images an make your own conclusion










My conclusion : I thought new Sigma wil be much better
 
The Sigma is notiecably more sharper if you ask me. Have you applied USM or any other post effect to the images?

I am going to buy the Sigma with my next pay check and what you are showing me here strengthens my belief that it is a great lens. It looks a lot sharper then the kit lens and with better contrast I think.
--
Jorgen Jonassen
 
Thanks for efforts, looks like a lot of work! I'm not sure what to make of it though, especially that last image. In my few tests I've found the Sigma to be much better than the 18-55 in all cases.

My quick test between the Sigma, EFS18-55, and 17-40L can be found here:

http://members.cox.net/daring1/stuff/test.html

I know how hard it is to maintain a consistant focus indoors. The close proximity and low light don't help. I was bored and did a quick test with my three lenses this afternoon outdoors. The sun was mostly behind clouds but did manage to peak through a bit at times so the exposures and white ballance are a bit varied so I know it's not perfect. I thought the 17-40L should be a bit sharper, but I repeated the shots with it and they came out the same a 2nd time. Overall, from this and a lot of pics I took this weekend I'm quite happy with this lens and intend to sell the 17-40L.
 
The Sigma looks much better than the Canon--especially at wider apertures.

Sigma is not very good wide open though. I think my 18-50/2.8 is better.
 
my conclusion, your kit lens look really good (for the kit), but the sigma does look better, can clearly see a difference, if not amazingly so.
 
Does anyone know if the Sigma has known quality issues? I just bought a Sigma 10-20 and wasn't satisfied with its performance on the right side. Hard to judge because I was not familiar with an ultrawide, a few people told me it was normal. But I'm a little weary of ordering Sigma. I researched the 30 1.4 as well but there are lots of people reporting focusing problems.
 
Michael Mattox said:
Does anyone know if the Sigma has known quality issues? I just
bought a Sigma 10-20 and wasn't satisfied with its performance on
the right side. Hard to judge because I was not familiar with an
ultrawide, a few people told me it was normal. But I'm a little
weary of ordering Sigma. I researched the 30 1.4 as well but there
are lots of people reporting focusing problems.
Click to expand...
Also a lot of "quality issues" even with Canon L lenses. Hard to say how much these fall in "normal quality variation" and how much these are real issues needeing correction. Today seems many people hunt after a "perfect copy" to get the best possible sharpness and uniformity for their (today so "sharp" or high resolution) dSLRs.

I have owned now 3 Sigmas. First was 2nd hand 400 f5.6, which today is not used as not functioning with Canon dSLRs (and no rechip available - but not a big loss as the optical quality of the lens is poor - note this is not the current APO version but was the old cheap design). The 2nd one was the 18-125 now sold out (changed to Canon 17-85 to get faster and silent AF and the IS). No real problems with that lens. 3rd one is the 10-20 I bought last week, and this seems to be very good. Very sharp (even proved that 350D does make moire - and this was wide open) and other functionality after initial testing OK.
 
To say that even L lenses have a lot of QC issues, when we're on the topic of Sigma, is hyperbole.
 
The normal Canon lenses also have problems.

I have owned two 75-300 USM lensens from canon. The first one just died suddenly and I got a replacement under warranty.

The second one, within 1 year, the USM motor broke. I got repaired by Canon. Now a few weeks ago, the USM motor broke down again.

I owned a Conon 35-80 (the plastic one) wich also broke down. I have a Sigma 24/2.8 and a Sigma 28-105/2.8-4, and I have never had any problem. The only Canon lens that survived was the old 28-105/3.5-4.5. This was a really robust and heavy lens, alhough the "sliding zoom" became a bit loose in the end. I replaced it with the Sigma 28-105, that has never failed me on my Eos 100 and my current Eos 33.
 
Observing your tests I think I've come to the following conclusion on each shot. Please mind I'm not a pro and have little experience but I think my conclusions are quite objective. I expeciallly observed the letters resolution (on books).

IMHO the winners are:

Test1 f2.8 Sigma of course...
f3.5 Sigma
f8 Canon ( but who cares, it is better to win at large apertures)

Test2 Sigma at all apertures

Test3 f4.5 Sigma of course
f5.6 Sigma (less evident difference)
f8 Difficult to say

Test4 f2.8 Sigma of course...
f3.5 Sigma
f8 Canon

Test5 f4.5 Sigma of course
f5.6 Canon
f8 little adv. Canon
 
I was referring more to quality issues when new out of the box. Many sigmas ship with decentered images that are blurry on one side, AF focus problems, etc. Many people who have good copies of Sigmas have them because they were repaired by Sigma. Well my coworker has been waiting for over 2 months for his 24-70 to be repaired for backfocus.

I'm selling my kit lens with my 350D to upgrade to the 30D and I'm debating if I want to buy another kit lens with it or not. I have the Sigma 18-200 so I don't really need the kit lens but I found out while trying to sell my body that no one wants to buy it without the kit lens.

I'd like to see a comparison between the 17-70 & 18-200. :)

-michael
 
Michael Mattox said:
I was referring more to quality issues when new out of the box.
Many sigmas ship with decentered images that are blurry on one
side, AF focus problems, etc. Many people who have good copies of
Sigmas have them because they were repaired by Sigma. Well my
coworker has been waiting for over 2 months for his 24-70 to be
repaired for backfocus.
Click to expand...
And my point based on the limited experience with Sigma is no real problems detected. Nor in any of my own Canon lenses, but some in the Canon lenses loaned from my office. I have no real info of any reliable source of problem amount - and different rants in different forums does not IMHO count as such.
Michael Mattox said:
I'm selling my kit lens with my 350D to upgrade to the 30D and I'm
debating if I want to buy another kit lens with it or not. I have
the Sigma 18-200 so I don't really need the kit lens but I found
out while trying to sell my body that no one wants to buy it
without the kit lens.
Click to expand...
IMOh the kit lens have good value - if not anything else to be part of the "reselling" process if you later upgrade. I a bit recret selling the kit lens with the 300D - and the 350D I bought as body as I already had the 17-85 IS.
Michael Mattox said:
I'd like to see a comparison between the 17-70 & 18-200. :)
Click to expand...
And I the review of the new 17-55 f2.8 IS.

After 1st shots with my new Sigma 10-20 the 17-85 IS just feels no longer sharp enough - and based on images seen around my copy of the Canon lens is quite good.
Michael Mattox said:
-michael
Click to expand...
 
I am adding my third test : this time Sigma 17-70 versus Tokina 12-24.
No image postprocessing, 100% crops, MLU, AF/priority, canon 350D.

17mm............



20mm............



24mm............



It really seems curious to me what sigma did at 20mm !! Why 20mm gives much vorse results than at 17 and 24mm ? (maybe one element in group X does not move - I guess :) .......
 
Your last tests seem to be mixed up. At 20mm you have a 3.2 shot for the Tokina, which is an f/4 lens. On the 24mm tests you only have one row of pics--can't tell from which lens.

The Tokina pics are also significantly larger than the Sigma pics.
 
I got confused because you moved the test captions. The Tokina looks pretty poor wide open. Curious how it would do stopped down one stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top