Sigma 18-125 to replace Canon 18-55?

I'm thinking about getting a Sigma 18-125 to replace the kit lens (Canon 18-55) for my Digital Rebel XT. I'm looking for something that I can use as a good walkaround lens for vacationing, etc... specifically I was looking for something a little longer than 55 - and the Sigma not only is way longer, but isn't going to kill my wallet. Has anyone done a comparison? Will I be dispointed with the Sigma in the 18-55 range? Will I see more distortion or CA at the wide end? I have thought about other lenses, and I should say that 125 is not a must, but the 17-70 seems a bit short to me, and it also much more expensive.

Thanks for the help!

OK optically but has trouble focusing at times. There are many that like the Sigma 17-70 so that would be a better choice.

I reviewed quite a few lenses to replace the kit lens and came up with the Sigma 17-70. The 18-125 was noisy and I took it off my camera as soon as I activated the AF. The 17-70 is more useful than the 18-50 and thought that the 18-200 had too many give&takes.

Consider the Canon 17-85IS with the IS and USM focusing.

IMO, focusing speed and accuracy is very, very important for a walk-around lens.

Doesn't matter how sharp or long a lens is, if it misses focus, the shot is ruined.

No, it's not a perfect lens by any means, but it is a fantastic walk-around lens. It's sharp, fast & accurate and has the IS to give you 3 stops worth of lower shutter speeds.

Kind of pricey but I think well worth it.

I have the 18-125. Very good in good light and stopped down a bit. Good with a strong flash.

However, very poor focusing at low light conditions. The lens will hunt for focus and it is hit or miss.

I rarely use this lens now.

As others have pointed out, the Sigma sometimes has focussing issues, but so does the kit lens. Optically, the Sigma is significantly better, especially around 55mm.

Focussing is a problem on very distant subjects or ones with lots of small detail rather than a large main subject (e.g., a field of flowers will confuse it). It does fine with people shots at close to medium distances. Once you get to know its weaknesses, you can work around it.

The real problem is that Canon has concentrated on the FF crowd, and there is no really strong choice as a standard zoom for its 1.6x cameras. Both of Nikon's kit lenses are better than Canon's, and they are soon to offer a third with the D80.

The 17-85 has fast and accurate focussing, but it is overpriced and has image quality problems at wide angle.

Some have mentioned the Sigma 17-70, which appears to have a lot of fans. When I tried it out in several test shots in a store, its focussing also left something to be desired. Not grossly off, but not perfect either, and it's quite a bit more expensive than the 18-125 for a much shorter range.

I would recommend buying a used 18-125, which you can usually get for about $150 to $200 on eBay.

What ; when they just released the 17-55 IS , THE BEST maybe lens in their line-up , for the crop cameras ?

SamK2 said:

The real problem is that Canon has concentrated on the FF crowd,
and there is no really strong choice as a standard zoom for its
1.6x cameras. Both of Nikon's kit lenses are better than Canon's,
and they are soon to offer a third with the D80.

Click to expand...

http://www.pbase.com/mariush

SamK2 said:

As others have pointed out, the Sigma sometimes has focussing
issues, but so does the kit lens. Optically, the Sigma is
significantly better, especially around 55mm.

Click to expand...

Disagree. The kit lens focuses very well. And btw, focusing has only one "s".

SamK2 said:

The real problem is that Canon has concentrated on the FF crowd,
and there is no really strong choice as a standard zoom for its
1.6x cameras.

Click to expand...

Better think about this one again. The 17-85 IS is a strong choice. Read what Phil has to say about it on the 350D review and look at some of his example photos. Oh and I guess the 17-55 f/2.8 is no good either.

SamK2 said:

The 17-85 has fast and accurate focussing, but it is overpriced and
has image quality problems at wide angle.

Click to expand...

Yea, a little expensive but you get what you pay for. Wide angle problems are way overblown. It has some distortion yes, but it is not noticeable unless you like to take photos of brick walls at wide angle. It has some CA but so do the others. I get excellent wide angle results with this lens.

SamK2 said:

I would recommend buying a used 18-125, which you can usually get
for about $150 to $200 on eBay.

Click to expand...

I'd stick with his kit lens and get a new Sigma 55-200 ($129) as a suppliement before getting someone's used worn out POS lens eBay that wasn't that great even when new.

Thanks for the input - I appreciate it!

I'm not overly concerned about focusing problems, as long as it's not front focusing. I can get the lens for a deal locally, so I can make sure I get a decent focusing copy - but I'm thinking of trading in the kit lens to cut a few bucks off the price - I want to make sure I'm not going to regret this decision - eventually I will probably get a Canon 12-22 or Sigma 12-20, but until then - the 18-125 will be my only wide lens. How's the quality at 18-22 range in comparison to the kit? I'm not so concerned about 30mm or 50mm because I own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Canon 50mm f/1.8 - so if I am desperate for better quality I can just switch lenses - I just don't want to be switching lenses every 5 minutes...

I think what this comes down to is that I'm just looking for a lens to tide me over until I can afford to pick up something better. I just keep wondering if I should spring for the 17-70, and sacrifice length for IQ...

They don't look like POS to me. To whomever said that this lens is POS, well, I guess your standard is way up there.
--
visit my photography blog for tips, tricks and rants at:
http://landakphotography.blogspot.com

Not that much in that range to sacrifice optical quality for. It's probably an ok walkaround, but I doubt you'd see the quality anywhere near your primes. So yes, you'd gain length, but thats about it. You might consider the Tamron 17-50 2.8, a true bargain for what you get out of it, low light, wide landscape and portrait. They are around $440. There you would see an improvement in image quality a tad cheaper than the 17-85IS, and low light capabilities too. [no IS tho]
--



http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
DSC V1 Sony for Infrared, Canon 20D,
a few too many lenses...

Noone said it is a POS ; It has quite respectable optical quality ( like most of Sigmas ! ) .

BUT the big BUT is the focussing ... YOu might have been lucky ; my copies could not focus at all ,not above 60mm anyway. I tried 3 of them , one went front , one went back ,and my last one just fell apart in a few months ; the lens was actually falling out ( I mean it would zoom itself out when pointed down ) and had a big play inside the lens case... I gave it to a friend for free when he bought his first 300D .

I am very pleased with the Tamron 17-50 now .

http://www.pbase.com/mariush

A lot bigger, a lot heavier and a LOT more expensive, with less range.

I have both and I quite often use the 18-125 when I want to travel light.
--
TonySD

I have the 17-55 on my camera. Walking in the woods the other day a Muntjak deer ran out onto the path - I just wished for the extra reach of the 18-125. I had the excellent Tamron 55-200 in my bag, but no time to change lenses...
--
TonySD

I upgraded from the kit to the Sigma 18-125 when it first came out. It is very good optically. I have no idea what you mean by "not overly concerned about focusing problems, as long as it's not front focusing". Autofocus on this lens can be erratic, meaning off by more than 1xDOF. This I believe is because Sigma does not know how the exact Canon body to lens protocol works. But when you zoom in all the way, focus, then zoom out and shoot the error is very small (because DOF is shallow at 125mm) and you get very good pictures. This technique of course doesn't work for shots taken at 125mm so these are really hit or miss.

Distortion is similar to the more expensive Canon 17-85IS: it's moustache distortion at the wide end, and pincushion distortion everywhere else.

I have upgraded to the 17-85IS and don't regret that one bit. Focus is now fast, silent and accurate, and the IS is amazing in low light. If you can afford it, go for the 17-85IS. If you can't, the Sigma 18-125 is a bargain but it is caveat empor.

artlogical said:

Thanks for the input - I appreciate it!

I'm not overly concerned about focusing problems, as long as it's
not front focusing. I can get the lens for a deal locally, so I
can make sure I get a decent focusing copy - but I'm thinking of
trading in the kit lens to cut a few bucks off the price - I want
to make sure I'm not going to regret this decision - eventually I
will probably get a Canon 12-22 or Sigma 12-20, but until then -
the 18-125 will be my only wide lens. How's the quality at 18-22
range in comparison to the kit? I'm not so concerned about 30mm or
50mm because I own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Canon 50mm f/1.8 -
so if I am desperate for better quality I can just switch lenses -
I just don't want to be switching lenses every 5 minutes...

I think what this comes down to is that I'm just looking for a lens
to tide me over until I can afford to pick up something better. I
just keep wondering if I should spring for the 17-70, and sacrifice
length for IQ...

Click to expand...

--

Slowly learning to use the DRebel (only around 24.000 shots) and now also the Fuji F11.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

Been using this lens for several months to take club pictures and moderate distance nature shots. Has worked very well under radiacally varing light levels. Does not focus too well when light is so low I have trouble seeing the object but then what lens does. At those levels I can not be certain just where I am trying to focus. In short the lens has served me very well until I take the leap into over priced glamour lens.

Paul Stricklin
--
LPS

I'm just countering what Roger55 said

"I'd stick with his kit lens and get a new Sigma 55-200 ($129) as a suppliement before getting someone's used worn out POS lens eBay that wasn't that great even when new."

I think I'm one of the lucky few. However, between myself and several more friends who are using the same lens model (but different bodies from XT, 20D, 30D, Pentax and Nikon), we have yet to encounter the focus problem (touch wood).

Of course, the Tamron 17-50 is a far better lens

Torque124 said:

Noone said it is a POS ; It has quite respectable optical quality (
like most of Sigmas ! ) .

BUT the big BUT is the focussing ... YOu might have been lucky ; my
copies could not focus at all ,not above 60mm anyway. I tried 3 of
them , one went front , one went back ,and my last one just fell
apart in a few months ; the lens was actually falling out ( I mean
it would zoom itself out when pointed down ) and had a big play
inside the lens case... I gave it to a friend for free when he
bought his first 300D .

I am very pleased with the Tamron 17-50 now .

http://www.pbase.com/mariush

Click to expand...

--
visit my photography blog for tips, tricks and rants at:
http://landakphotography.blogspot.com

artlogical said:

I can get the lens for a deal locally, so I
can make sure I get a decent focusing copy - but I'm thinking of
trading in the kit lens to cut a few bucks off the price - I want
to make sure I'm not going to regret this decision - eventually I
will probably get a Canon 12-22 or Sigma 12-20, but until then -
the 18-125 will be my only wide lens. How's the quality at 18-22
range in comparison to the kit? I'm not so concerned about 30mm or
50mm because I own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Canon 50mm f/1.8 -
so if I am desperate for better quality I can just switch lenses -

Click to expand...

Art,

I got the Sigma 18-125mm over a year ago, and haven't used the kit lens since. I haven't traded mine in, but might if they would offer me more than $20 for it.

I recently bought the 17-85IS and returned it as I didn't see that big of an improvement over the sigma 18-125mm.

I am longing for the 17-55mm 2.8IS though....

P

jrscls said:

OK optically but has trouble focusing at times. There are many that
like the Sigma 17-70 so that would be a better choice.

Click to expand...

Quite like my experience with this lens.
Sold that after a couple months use and bought 17-85 IS.

Sigma 17-70 may be a good option, but I have spoiled myself with only USM or HSM lenses, so nothing less will not do anymore.

petee_c said:

I recently bought the 17-85IS and returned it as I didn't see that
big of an improvement over the sigma 18-125mm.

I am longing for the 17-55mm 2.8IS though....

P

Click to expand...

Did you value the improvment of USM ring and fast & accurate AF, IS, and resell value?