Canon EF-S 17-55mm VS Sigma 17-50mm VS Tamron 17-50mm?

qianp2k wrote:

Sovern wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

psychoticpanda wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

28mm is a good focal length, what I meant is that if you owned one of these zooms being discussed I don't think you'd use the 28mm prime all that often. The only other suggestion I could make to you that hasn't been covered here is renting the both of them and seeing which you like better, that's what I did. Sadly that's a bit of an investment itself.

I didn't understand the original post fully, sorry about that. You are right it would only be a little bit faster of a lens so I would probably use the 17-5X for whatever I would use that prime for. Now I guess it is just between the Sigma and a flash or the Canon...

DXOMark EF 28/1.8 vs EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS 

You see EF 28/1.8 has no advantage over EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS unless you stop down to at least F2.0 or to F2.8 no mention latter is a zoom and has 'IS'. But once you stop down 17-55/2.8 IS a bit more, it gains advantage again. 28/1.8 doesn't perform well on a FF as well.

You don't get wrong with either EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS or Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS. If you're willing to spend $400 more, get Canon or get Sigma. Then $400 difference you saved can get 430EX II ($250) and Canon 40/2.8 STM Pancake ($150) for street shots.

I'd actually advise skipping the 17-50 lenses all together and getting a 5Dc. After doing research and a lot of informative posts were made on this forum you would be better off with a 5Dc and getting a lens such as a used canon 24-105mm f 4l and a 5D body after selling your current crop body.

Reason being is that the 17-50 isn't true 2.8 on crop body it's actually F4.5 bokeh and image noise wise (2.8 * 1.6).

So the 24-105 would be better optically, also wider than the 17-50 lenses, and longer aswell not to mention it has IS.

LOL, you now speak as I used to be. But I am not a FF zealot as someone migh perceive but just sometime arguing absolute value too much, not worth it Crop has its operation advantages but that lens 17-55/2.8 IS is not that small and light and only slightly lighter than 24-105L.

Seems like a damn good zoom lens to me and paired with a FF body like a cheap used 5Dc you can;t go wrong.

You're right. Check DXOMark 5Dc+24-105L beats 17-5x on crop in sharpness and resolution. Byt 5Dc is a dinosaur, a little pain to use if you don't bother - green-cast LCD, dust magnet and w/o LV and modern bells and whistles. If OP wants to take photos on runing kids, 5Dc AF has no problem but just slow so certainly to expect to take many action photos. 6D maybe better for that kind of usage.

The Canon 17-55 is definitely way overpriced though and the Sigma has a yellow tint and the Tamron has a cool color cast. I'd stay away from each one of these lenses and stick with the kit lens if you plan on staying with crop body.

That I agreed 17-55 is vastly overpriced, one of main reasons I didn't buy. Sigma has wamer cast not really yellow but easily fixed in PP and someone may prefers actually so more subjective.

Yea me and you agree the only thing is that for me I could care less about the cameras LCD as I read that the 5Dc has the essential bare bone settings and menu which is all that I really need as I set white balance with a white white balance card and that can be corrected easily in post if I'm too lazy for that.

But yea I'm getting rid of my 450D and getting a 5Dc for only $300 more (after selling the body for $200) as I'm disappointed with how my 85 1.8 performs on crop body (F2.9 on crop) not to mention way less background blur because you have to stand further back and the crop body's tend to get really noisy easily and I don't find their noise appealing.

I have a question for you though if you don;t mind answering it. How well does the 24-105L compare to the Canon 24-70L 2.8 I optically?