Can Sigma 18-125 f3.5-5.6 compare to Canon 17-85?

[Bizzen75]

Hi,

My question is quite simply this: Can the Sigma 18-125 f3.5-5.6 compare to Canon 17-85 IS 4-5.6? If you don't regard the IS, can it compare? I mean in sharpness, fastness (focus) etc.

Why aren't there a good lens site like this dpreview site for cameras? Or maybe I just don't know where to look?

I hope to hear from you,

Tobias

 

[Olde Guy Tom]

Visit the canon 300/350 forum and look for post
Buying XT - Another Lens Question from antem

 

[RDKit]

I had the Sigma 18-125 originally for my XT and now use the 17-85 as my "walk-around" lens. The 17-85 focuses much faster, much quiter - and most importantly - much more accurate. While my 17-85 is somewhat sharper than my 18-125 was, the real problem was numerous out of focus shots especially inside.

By the way you shouldn't underestimate the "blessing" of image stabilization. I shot a large number (more than a 1,000) of shots on a trip to central Europe in very dark museums & churches and they turned out amazing.

 

[digi-AL]

I had the 18-125 and used it for my one lens walk-around solution and said I would never pay $600 USD for the 17-85. I lived with the Sigma's shortcomings of missing the focus every now and then as well as hunting focus in dim light. I found the lens to be best as an outdoor, bright light lens and when stopped down, produced some very sharp and colorful images. I used it for well over a year.

Then, one day I read about Dell coupons and was lucky to get in before the coupon expired and was able to pick up the 17-85 for $409 delivered. I figured that even if it was only just as good as the Sigma, I could always sell it and not take a loss.

I was surprised at the quality of focus in both speed and acuracy as well as how nice the IS is for many situations. It produces very nice images, and while not as sharp as my Tamron 28-75, Canon 85 1.8 or Tokina 12-24, it is more versitle then all of them.

I sold my 18-125 on eBay a few weeksafter getting the 17-85.

When the Sigma is compared to the 17-85 at $250 versus $600 I wouldn't get the 17-85, but $250 versus a bit over $400 then I think it is worth considering.

Good luck

--
Al
a thousand people...a thousand opinions...
http://www.pbase.com/algordon

 

[ChrisDM]

The Canon focuses soo much faster than the Sigma. I would say their image sharpness is similar. Both are acceptable to me.

But, as others have mentioned, don't discount IS. It allows you to get shots you wouln't be able to get with any other lens. Here's an example. I saw this sunrise as I was boarding a plane last week. The dim light required IS for proper shutter speed. My tripod was in my luggage, although I don't think I would have had the nerve to set up a tripod in this situation anyway...

So, this shot was handheld at 1/2 second at 47mm I believe, ISO 100. Sure, I would have been able to get the shot without IS if I had bumped the ISO way up, but the noise-free image qualilty at ISO 100 is unmistakable when looking at the smooth sky, etc... IS allows you to do this when a tripod isn't handy or practical. This lens is a must-have, I think.



--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

 

[hbx2004]

I had Sigma 18-125 and with one word: useless.

The problem is AutoFocus accuracy (not only indoor). If AF hits, then you can get very good photo... but you can never be sure if that will happen. So what is worth of having (relative) good glass, if you can't rely on AF -photos won't be sharp.

Well, you can play the game "maybe I'll get a good copy" if you wish. But I don't believe it's just "good/bad copy" issue... too many posters complain about that.
I don't own EF-S17-85.. but if you can afford, get it because of
-good range,
-USM AF,
-IS (it's a great feature).

If you can't afford it and wan't to be sure, get EF24-85USM. This lens has been somehow forgotten at these days. It's not so wide as those you mentioned, but enough for walkaround (and if you still have kit lens, you're covered).

Greetings,
Bogdan
--
My pictures are my memories
http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/

 

[YellowBullet]

Canon has IS, much faster focus and a bit less distortions.

Sigma has better range, better sharpness, zero CA and lower price.

 

[Michael Humpherson]

I have the Sigma lens and I have nothing but praise for its abilities. Here are some examples: (all shot with a polariser)













no doubting its sharpness nor its colour....I love it!!

But let's be honest, you get what you pay for. Yes Canon lenses are for the most part faster, quieter, sharper, on the whole just better. BUT and it is a big but, in this instance not £400 better. For me the answer is a totally definate no way to Canon, Sigma is a perfect carry around, little, light and truly great perfroming lens.....oh and it's cheap!

Michael H

 

[msouris2003]

Yup! My Sigma is fast focussing, accurate, quite quiet, and yes, it hunts in dim light, but I don't think Canon is going to be a lot better in these conditions, The 18-125 is not for indoor use without a flash, but it's great with decent light. Paid $150 on eBay. Love it!

 

[Greg Kovacs]

Yup! My Sigma is fast focussing, accurate, quite quiet, and yes,
it hunts in dim light, but I don't think Canon is going to be a lot
better in these conditions, The 18-125 is not for indoor use
without a flash, but it's great with decent light. Paid $150 on
eBay. Love it!

I have shot thousands of images with both lenses. While the Sigma is a nice and sharp lens, and it's autofocus can be called almost reliable, the Canon is a world apart. The USM focusing of the 17-85 IS with FTM (Fulltime Manual) is simply excellent, bang on, superquiet and superfast.

Greg

 

[okayfine]

For those with the Sigma 18-125, I have one quick question :

Can you zoom in, then focus, then zoom out and frame your shot? Will this help you get better focused shots?

 

[speediq99]

I compared these two lenses and the Sigma 18-200. Like usual, it took several copies to find a good one but I ended up with the 18-200. The 18-200 was very close in sharpness to the 17-85 and both were better than the 18-125. IS for low-light is a huge advantage but I convinced myself to always use a flash indoor or resort to a fast prime for low-light.

Mike

 

[Jared Hunter]

You must have gotten a bad 18-125 for testing. I just compared a Sigma 18-200 to my 18-125. The 18-200 was less sharp and had less contrast and saturation. CA in the corners is horrendous on the Canon 17-85...same quality as from a cheap point and shoot lens when it comes to CA and barrel distortion.

I compared these two lenses and the Sigma 18-200. Like usual, it
took several copies to find a good one but I ended up with the
18-200. The 18-200 was very close in sharpness to the 17-85 and
both were better than the 18-125. IS for low-light is a huge
advantage but I convinced myself to always use a flash indoor or
resort to a fast prime for low-light.

Mike

 

[Torque124]

True , but sharpness above 24mm is one class above both sigmas.

I have both canon 17-85 and 18-125 ; the Sigma is only trouble ( focussing wise ).

The Canon Kit lens 18-55 is also shaper ( not by much , very close call ) than the sigma , and less distorsions at wide angle (sigma and the 17-85 distort like crazy , but they are quite long zooms for that , and it is expected ).

The 17-85 will have a tad more CA than the sigma , but it is easily corrected . The IS is worth it , shots as long as 1/2 s are achievable , and focus won't miss one shot , never ever .

Focuss missed too many shots on my 18-125 from Sigma ( and it is the 3rd copy I have tried ) to consider it as a all arround lens . I can't even sell it , I don't want to ruin my ebay rating . For now it sits there unused ; I promised to give it for free ( well , maybe a few beers ) to a friend who will soon buy a used 300D body as a slr-starter...

cheers

I compared these two lenses and the Sigma 18-200. Like usual, it
took several copies to find a good one but I ended up with the
18-200. The 18-200 was very close in sharpness to the 17-85 and
both were better than the 18-125. IS for low-light is a huge
advantage but I convinced myself to always use a flash indoor or
resort to a fast prime for low-light.

Mike

--
http://www.pbase.com/mariush

 

[deepak rao]

--
Regards,

Deepak

http://www.rnhinfo.com/Photographs

 

[Paul De Bra]

With the Sigma 18-125 my experience was that it was necessary to zoom in, then focus, then zoom out and frame and shoot, because otherwise the focus would be hit or miss.

With the Canon 17-85 you can do the same, but it isn't necessary to achieve acceptable focus (although you achieve even better focus when you use the technique).

The Sigma 18-125 is optically very good: sharp, low CA, and very resistant to purple fringing. The Canon is optically good but has more CA and more PF. However focus is much faster, quieter and accurate on the Canon than on the Sigma. I get more keepers from the Canon than I did with the Sigma (if I didn't use the parfocal focusing technique mentioned here).

For those with the Sigma 18-125, I have one quick question :

Can you zoom in, then focus, then zoom out and frame your shot?
Will this help you get better focused shots?

--
Slowly learning to use the DRebel (only around 20.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

 

[Tony SD]

I find my 18-125 very sharp and well corrected. It compares quite well to my 50 1.8 and 100 2.8 macro (but not quite as sharp), but is much more versatile. I tried a 18-200 which focused well, but was definitely softer. This seems to be borne out by the tests on a Japanese site too.
--
TonySD

 

[Tony SD]

an unsatisfactory lens?

Thousands of the Sigma have been sold and the great majority of people are happy with it - see previous postings on this forum.
--
TonySD

 

[msouris2003]

I've never needed the parfocal technique on my 18-125, as it's focussing has always been accurate first go. Great lens for the price.
YMMV.

 

[Jared Hunter]

At 18mm, try focusing on something farther away, like a tree across the street. I bet in most attempts, the focus ring will settle on the 15 ft mark on the focus ring. Now without refocussing, zoom into the tree. Is it truly in focus?

I've never needed the parfocal technique on my 18-125, as it's
focussing has always been accurate first go. Great lens for the
price.
YMMV.