canon 15-85 vs. sigma 17-50

I'm looking at buying my standard lens for a 7D. Canon 17-55 has been mentioned but it is out of my price range at this point. Opinions on Canon 15-85 vs Sigma 17-50? I do have a Canon EF 35 f2, which would help if I went with the Canon 17-85.

bigelow wrote:

I'm looking at buying my standard lens for a 7D. Canon 17-55 has been mentioned but it is out of my price range at this point. Opinions on Canon 15-85 vs Sigma 17-50? I do have a Canon EF 35 f2, which would help if I went with the Canon 17-85.

the 15-85 is a popular lens for its wide zoom range ... it performs poorly in low-light unless aided by flash ... the lens is well suited for daytime activities ...

the 17-50 f/2.8 has the widest aperture available on an aps-c zoom lens which helps in low-light situations where flash is not allowed ... the f/2.8 also helps isolate a subject from the background for portraits ...

i went with the 17-50 because most of my photos are taken after hours where flash isn't allowed ... if you don't mind "zooming" with your feet, the 35 f/2 could do the low-light work while a new 15-85 could take on the daytime responsibilities ...

you could also invest in an external flash which has more bang for the buck when considering lighting ...

whatever works for you ...

bigelow wrote:

I'm looking at buying my standard lens for a 7D. Canon 17-55 has been mentioned but it is out of my price range at this point. Opinions on Canon 15-85 vs Sigma 17-50? I do have a Canon EF 35 f2, which would help if I went with the Canon 17-85.

15-85 + 35f2 is my combo

sigma 17-50 would be a good choice if you want a one lens soln

bigelow wrote:

I'm looking at buying my standard lens for a 7D. Canon 17-55 has been mentioned but it is out of my price range at this point. Opinions on Canon 15-85 vs Sigma 17-50? I do have a Canon EF 35 f2, which would help if I went with the Canon 17-85.

I've got the Sigma 17-50 and absolutely love it. Like confyushis said - you're talking about 2 different lenses and uses.

If I had only one lens, the 15-85 would most certainly be my choice. I've got the 17-85 (bought when they first came out) and it has served me well for ages. It was my only lens for a couple of years. Besides being kind of iffy in places, it does pretty much all you ask of it and has a great range. You can seriously survive just fine with an f4-5.6. I'd go for range over speed - but that's a personal preference. In that sense, I've got 4 fast lenses, so maybe I'm cheating?

The 17-50 is tack sharp across the board, wide open or not. But, it's got limited range that you will notice. You don't realize how short 50 is until it's all you've got!

Also, if you do video I'd say the focus is lacking. No FT manual and a short 45° throw with a too-loose focus ring. I prefer my old EF-S 17-85 for video. But, I hardly ever do video. Then again, when the moment hits - chances are at least 85% that's the lens that's on the camera!

My only other gripe about the 15-85 is uneven vignetting, and occasional soft corners. As far as handling, it's at least as good if not better than the Sigma as far as feel. Then again, it's been ages since I've handled one so I might be off on that a little. It was definitely better than my 17-85.

BTW, I was vacillating on the 17-55 and went with the 17-50 after handling a friend's 17-55 a few times. Then, as soon as I got the 17-50, he put his 17-55 up for sale (hmmm) and by that point I thought the 17-50 was a better lens. I could still have returned it and gotten his for about the same price, but was too blown away by the sharpness. Something I didn't get wooed by with his. Plus, it's BIG and HEAVY.

While you're in the market, don't forget to look at the Tamron - while I don't particularly like them (VC and non), a lot of folks here do. I'd be remiss if I didn't at least mention them. The non VC certainly is sharp, and a bargain price. I'm not so sure you really need stabilization in a lens that short, except maybe wide open at 50 in a dim room. Which is a lot for me!

17-50 in live view - one of the first shots I took

17-50 again wide open



look at original - check corners - taken on windy day but sharp to edges (see focus point)



Good old 17-85 has gotten me through a lot of trips - it's nice to be able to take just one lens



Not too bad for a lens with terrible distortion, corner softness and lots of CA

While a lot of folks have complained about an apparent flaw in the 17-85 - the AF ribbon coming loose, I've never had a single blip out of it. The 15-85 absolutely blows it away, and is a heck of a deal for the price. The Sigma has gone down steadily in price since its introduction (like most Sigmas! :-)).

I had the same exact dilemma and said, "Oh, **** it." and just ordered the Sigma 35 1.4.

MMACory wrote:

I had the same exact dilemma and said, "Oh, **** it." and just ordered the Sigma 35 1.4.

Ah! That's the secret!

Now I know how to get me one-a-them Siggy 35 f1.4's.

"Oh, **** it." Kinda like "open sesame"?

I do need to wait a few days though - there's an unopened 600ex-rt box about 2 feet away from me right now!

I could always tell my wife the "A" on the lens is the initial for my first name!
"See hon? Right there, a big A! It's a sign! It'd be bad luck NOT to get it!"

The flash was easy, it came with FREE batteries and a charger! FREE! How can you beat that?
Of course, now I have a charger for every room in the house...

Don't overlook the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. Of course nobody has tested it yet since they've just become available. But if recent Sigma lenses are anything to go by (35/1.4, 17-50/2.8, etc.) it should be pretty good optically. And it's only about $500US. Just be aware that there is also an older version of this lens which is still being sold and that is merely mediocre.

bigelow wrote:

I'm looking at buying my standard lens for a 7D. Canon 17-55 has been mentioned but it is out of my price range at this point. Opinions on Canon 15-85 vs Sigma 17-50? I do have a Canon EF 35 f2, which would help if I went with the Canon 17-85.

It's really a hard call and both options are good.  With the 35/2 in the arsenal already the 15-85 might work well for you.  I personally have the Sigma 17-50 and the Sigma 30/1.4, but I also have plenty of coverage longer than 50mm.  If you don't have anything longer than 50mm now, I think I would get the 15-85 instead.

have you thought of buying the 17-55 second hand?

a lot of people are upgrading to FF, thereby dumping their 17-55's on the second hand market. Recently bought mine for 500€ in mint condition. Upgraded from the tamron 17-50 which is realy nice for the price, but the canon wins on color/contrast, af and IS.

jeroen

Severian The Lame wrote:

Don't overlook the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. Of course nobody has tested it yet since they've just become available. But if recent Sigma lenses are anything to go by (35/1.4, 17-50/2.8, etc.) it should be pretty good optically. And it's only about $500US. Just be aware that there is also an older version of this lens which is still being sold and that is merely mediocre.

if they test it, and it gets great reviews, it will be the bomb that beats my 15-85  - now selling b&h

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909806-REG/Sigma_884101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_DC_Macro.html