Canon 17-55mm or sigma 18-35mm ?

Hello

I am planing to get new lens sharp and high IQ  and I found the best choice for my 450d these two lenses

they have the same price on amazon and i am confused of decide which better to me

canon 17-55mm f2.8 is usm

the good

-better zoom range for many use

- has IS

the bad :

- build quality is not good as L lenses

- there are other lenses  with similar range and aperture  but more less price

sigma 18-35mm f1.8

the good :

- it is new brand compared to canon 17-55

- 1.8 is faster and better in low light

- buying it is similar to buy many prime lenses with f1.8 (24mm,28m,30mm,35mm)

- better build quality

the bad :

- very heavy even more heavy than long zoom lenses !

- small zoom rang

- no IS

- I read there is some focus issues with sigma lenses and bad copies  !

sorry for the language because the English is not my native

The Sigma resolves more at f1.8 than the Canon at f2.8. Your move now...

Curve ball, Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS, fantastic lens, very comparable to the 17-55 (I've shot both side by side on a 7D), far less money.

thamer08 wrote:

Hello

I am planing to get new lens sharp and high IQ and I found the best choice for my 450d these two lenses

they have the same price on amazon and i am confused of decide which better to me

canon 17-55mm f2.8 is usm

the good

-better zoom range for many use

- has IS

the bad :

- build quality is not good as L lenses

- there are other lenses with similar range and aperture but more less price

sigma 18-35mm f1.8

the good :

- it is new brand compared to canon 17-55

- 1.8 is faster and better in low light

- buying it is similar to buy many prime lenses with f1.8 (24mm,28m,30mm,35mm)

- better build quality

the bad :

- very heavy even more heavy than long zoom lenses !

- small zoom rang

- no IS

- I read there is some focus issues with sigma lenses and bad copies !

sorry for the language because the English is not my native

your 450 body is holding back the resolution equation

upgrade the body to at least the SL1 or T4i or T5i to gain a stop of better noise performance at high iso

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/EF-S-17-55-f-2.8-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-450D-versus-Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-700D-versus-Canon-EF-35mm-F2-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-700D___169_185_1141_870_1086_870

but then here is the thing.  The 17-55 IS on a 450 only scores 7 MPix... that is low

whereas, the sigma 18-35 f1.8 scores 15 MPix on a 700d!

my 35 f2 IS scores 14 MPix on a 700d and has 4 stop IS

if you plan to go FF down the road, what I did was buy the 35 f2 IS and the 24 IS and run them on two light weight crop bodies, in my case the T4i and SL1.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

The Sigma resolves more at f1.8 than the Canon at f2.8. Your move now...

can you explain more  why it resolves canon f2.8 ?

Curve ball, Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS, fantastic lens, very comparable to the 17-55 (I've shot both side by side on a 7D), far less money.

thanks for your replay

sigma 17-50  also nice lens but it looks cheap build compared to canon and tamron also i read this lens has bad copies

MAC wrote:

thamer08 wrote:

Hello

I am planing to get new lens sharp and high IQ and I found the best choice for my 450d these two lenses

they have the same price on amazon and i am confused of decide which better to me

canon 17-55mm f2.8 is usm

the good

-better zoom range for many use

- has IS

the bad :

- build quality is not good as L lenses

- there are other lenses with similar range and aperture but more less price

sigma 18-35mm f1.8

the good :

- it is new brand compared to canon 17-55

- 1.8 is faster and better in low light

- buying it is similar to buy many prime lenses with f1.8 (24mm,28m,30mm,35mm)

- better build quality

the bad :

- very heavy even more heavy than long zoom lenses !

- small zoom rang

- no IS

- I read there is some focus issues with sigma lenses and bad copies !

sorry for the language because the English is not my native

your 450 body is holding back the resolution equation

upgrade the body to at least the SL1 or T4i or T5i to gain a stop of better noise performance at high iso

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/EF-S-17-55-f-2.8-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-450D-versus-Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-700D-versus-Canon-EF-35mm-F2-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-700D___169_185_1141_870_1086_870

but then here is the thing. The 17-55 IS on a 450 only scores 7 MPix... that is low

whereas, the sigma 18-35 f1.8 scores 15 MPix on a 700d!

my 35 f2 IS scores 14 MPix on a 700d and has 4 stop IS

if you plan to go FF down the road, what I did was buy the 35 f2 IS and the 24 IS and run them on two light weight crop bodies, in my case the T4i and SL1.

at recent I am not thinking of buy any cam and when I buy one in  the near future i will not by the same of my camera class (XXXD )

I will upgrade to 70D or full frame like 6D

thamer08 wrote:

Hello

I am planing to get new lens sharp and high IQ and I found the best choice for my 450d these two lenses

they have the same price on amazon and i am confused of decide which better to me

canon 17-55mm f2.8 is usm

the good

-better zoom range for many use

- has IS

the bad :

- build quality is not good as L lenses

- there are other lenses with similar range and aperture but more less price

sigma 18-35mm f1.8

the good :

- it is new brand compared to canon 17-55

- 1.8 is faster and better in low light

- buying it is similar to buy many prime lenses with f1.8 (24mm,28m,30mm,35mm)

- better build quality

the bad :

- very heavy even more heavy than long zoom lenses !

- small zoom rang

- no IS

- I read there is some focus issues with sigma lenses and bad copies !

sorry for the language because the English is not my native

My Issue with the 18-35 is how often are you to actually shoot at very wide aperture at normal to wide zoom settings. My take is that narrow aperture is mostly effective with a single subject, as with multiple subjects it can be tricky to get all of them in focus at once.  Yes, a wide is a bit less demanding than a tele for this, but it is still a factor.

If there was a good ~40-120 fast lens for APS-C, that might make the 18-35 more interesting to me...  There is a sigma, but it is as big as a FF 70-200 so that doesn't quite fit the bill.

I would really like a 40-120 f2.8 or a 40-80 f2.0 as a APS-C portrait zoom.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

The Sigma resolves more at f1.8 than the Canon at f2.8. Your move now...

can you explain more  why it resolves canon f2.8 ?

Why? You'll have to ask Canon and Sigma. The source of this assertion that the Sigma at f1.8 outresolves the Canon is DPReview in its review of the Sigma. Look it up

thamer08 wrote:

Curve ball, Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS, fantastic lens, very comparable to the 17-55 (I've shot both side by side on a 7D), far less money.

thanks for your replay

sigma 17-50 also nice lens but it looks cheap build compared to canon and tamron also i read this lens has bad copies

This is so far from the truth it's just nutso to me.  The build of the Sigma is much better than the Canon.  The mediocre build quality of the Canon is it's biggest downside, the build just doesn't live up to the near 1000$ L price level. (though it's on sale now for 830$)

As for bad copies, I don't know about that, where did you read that someone took a large sample size of this lens and reported a statistical value for "bad" copies?  Or do you mean that you read reviews online?  I think there are more Sigma lenses with issues than Canon lenses, but I doubt it is by a huge margin.

I have not collected up 1000 of these and tested them either though, so there's that.  The couple of copies that I've used have been excellent, but that's of very little statistical relevance.  Up to you, but for my it was clearly the best lens I owned for my 7D, even better than my 70-200 f4, also true for a couple of close friends.  My one friend told me he was upset when he bought it because now he just doesn't use his other lenses.

The Canon is just as good (better in corners at f2.8, worse in the center), but larger, worse built, more expensive, and you buy the hood separately.  I think you'd be happy with either one, honestly, it's just that one is 830$ and the other 570$.

1. The build quality of sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is very very good. I had a chance to test it when I bought my 100mm f2.8L IS USM. Surprisingly the lens has decent corner sharpness as well.

2. Unlike the 50mm f1.4, the 17-50mm f2.8 is not known for its bad copies.

3. The 17-50mm f2.8 lacks FTM though.

www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8/6

I'm thinking hard about the Sigma 18-35 f1.8.

From the review above, it seems that the main problem lies in the short zoom range, and the less than top autofocus.

Now, which way shall I go? 17-55 f2.8 or 18-35 f/1.8???

Or think of it this way. If we get the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, then what do we get from 35 mm onwards???

peterharvey wrote:

Or think of it this way. If we get the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, then what do we get from 35 mm onwards???

Answer:  it depends on what you shoot and how much weight you want to carry and how much you want to spend.

for me, the sigma is too much weight, no IS, relatively high cost, too short for a zoom, and the biggest issue is too much of a commitment to crop.

Get a good 24 IS and 35 IS and a good used 5dc To go with your 70d

now you got 24 fov, 35 fov, 38 fov, 56 fov  100 fov and 160 fov in very good primes With two bodies

sell the 100 btw and get the 100L

the 55-250 STM would have been a good purchase - I got mine for $184 with purchase of $375 SL1

Or think of it this way. If we get the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, then what do we get from 35 mm onwards???

60Macro
85F1.8

thanx all for your posts

i am thinking of sigma 17-50 in my opitions

peterharvey wrote:

Or think of it this way. If we get the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, then what do we get from 35 mm onwards???

I have canon 24-105 and they will be a good combo for me if i bought sigma 18-35

but the problem of the wight

I think I'm beginning to get it now.

1) Single lens option:

a) Entry level stock EF-S 18-55 STM

b) Wide range zoom EF-S 15-85

c) Wide range long zoom EF-S 18-135 STM

d) There is a very wide range long zoom EF-S 18-200, but it may be a bit old.

Understand that the single lens option will:

a) never be that ultra wide,

b) never be that long,

c) may not be huge in aperture.

2) Multi lens option:

a) Something like an EF-S 10-22 ultra wide

b) Something like an EF-S 55-250 tele, or beyond etc.

c) Wide aperture options:

i) Traditionally, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 was a zoom lens that bridged the gap to wide aperture prime lenses.

ii) Now enter the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8; it is only wide-normal for focal length, and not long, but it packs a bigger aperture.

Thus both the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 and the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 are good, but in different ways; both have their strengths and weaknesses.

For a combination of zoom range and aperture compromise, still go for EF-S 17-55 f2.8.

For outright aperture, but a narrower zoom range, and for something that is even closer to a single focal length prime lens, go for the Sigma 18-35 f1.8.

3) Truly wide apertures and prime lenses.

For a truly wide aperture, we must go to single focal length prime lenses.

However there aren't too many prime lenses dedicated to crop sensors.

4) For a truly wide range of lenses in general, and wide aperture prime lenses, we must move to full frame sensors...

I think I'm beginning to get it now.

1) Single lens option:

a) Entry level stock EF-S 18-55 STM, with roughly 3x zoom.

b) Wide range zoom EF-S 15-85 with roughly 6x zoom. Zoom range a little restricted because its an older model, and the extra wide 15mm end makes it harder to have a longer zoom range.

c) Wide range long zoom EF-S 18-135 STM with roughly 7x zoom, thanks to being relatively new model.

d) There is a very wide range long zoom EF-S 18-200 with roughly 11x zoom, but it may be a bit old.

All the general zooms mentioned above have an average aperture range of f/3.5 at the wide end, to f/5.6 at the long end.

Understand that the single lens option will:

a) never be that ultra wide,

b) never be that long,

c) may not be huge in aperture.

2) Multi lens option:

a) Something like an EF-S 10-22 ultra wide for width.

b) Something like an EF-S 55-250 etc for long tele.

c) Zoom lenses with wider apertures:

The zoom range diminishes, in favor of larger aperture sizes.

i) Traditionally, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 with roughly 3x zoom range was a zoom lens that bridged the gap to wide aperture prime lenses, with an aperture of f/2.8 that's 2/3 of a stop wider at the wide end, and a full 2 stops wider at the long end for four times greater brightness.

ii) Now enter the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 with roughly only 2x zoom range; it is only wide-normal for focal length, and not long, but it packs a bigger aperture of f/1.8 that is one and a third of a stop wider than the EF-S 17-55 f2.8. Hence, the Sigma is trading zoom range, for aperture size!

Thus both the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 and the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 are good, but in different ways; both have their strengths and weaknesses.

For a combination of zoom range and aperture compromise, still go for EF-S 17-55 f2.8.

For outright aperture, but a narrower zoom range, and for something that is even closer to a single focal length prime lens, go for the Sigma 18-35 f1.8.

3) Single focal length prime lenses with the very largest apertures.

For a truly wide aperture, we must go to single focal length prime lenses.

However there aren't too many prime lenses dedicated to crop sensors.

4) For a truly wide range of lenses in general, and wide aperture prime lenses, we must move to full frame sensors...

Very good YouTube comparison of four lenses:

http://youtu.be/T3UfbsdfUu8

Your analysis Ignores one key dimension: Image Quality

peterharvey wrote:

Very good YouTube comparison of four lenses:

http://youtu.be/T3UfbsdfUu8

great video comparison

i saw it before and that made me remove tamron and sigma 17-50 from my choices