Canon 17-55 vs sigma

[RebeccaAPhotography]

Hey guys so I had rented the 17-55 for a wedding that I shot. I wanted to rent the 24-70 but they were out of stock for the time frame I needed them. Well I have to say I really really really liked that lens. I wanted some input on it if its worth purchasing for the long haul... Personally I could easily see that being my everyday lens glued to my camera. We dont have a huge budget, in reality this will be a present from my fiancee for many o occassions.... I'll be getting it at christmas but its for christmas, anniversary, push present (due in feb), my birthday. I couldve sworn when I was looking at prices I saw the canon around 800 i dont know if folks are raising their prices in attempts for the holidays to market "on sale prices". We do not have 1000 to spend and i saw the Sigma is more in our price range... Is the Sigma version a p o s??

 

[Big Mike]

There are a couple Sigma lenses in this category, which one are you looking at, specifically?

The one that usually gets the most recomndations as 'best bang for the buck' is the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (non VC). It should be $400-$500 new and it's a great little lens. I bought and used it as my main lens because the Canon 17-55mm was just too expensive. The VC version is newer and has the advantage of VC (their IS) but some have said it's not quite as good, and it's about $200 more.
The Sigma(s) are said to be pretty good as well.

As with most comparisons between Canon/Nikon and Sigma/Tamron....you can probably expect that with a Sigma/Tamron you will get 80%-90% of the quality, for half the price. For some, the extra cost is worth the price, for others it isn't.

The best lens in this catergorey is the Canon...and you won't be sorry to get it. But for a lot less, you can get a lens that is almost as good.

 

[.SimO.]

Here is a nice article regarding the two lenses in question. There was an article on the net I read months back that compared both lenses along iwth the Tamron Big Mike suggested but I can't find it to save the life of me.

I personally have the Sigma 17-50 and have ZERO complaints. Canon 17-55 is the best hands down but for the longer warranty, smaller price and knowing that I don't plan on putting it on the market in the foreseeable future, I opted for the Sigma over the Canon. Hope that helps a little. I have not tested the Tamron so I cannot speak on that.

Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM vs. Sigma 17-50/2.8 - photo.net

 

[RebeccaAPhotography]

Thanks for the article!!!

Big Mike. The lens that I was talking about in specific was the ones equivilant to the canon 17-55 2.8 usm

As far as costs go the one that is cheaper category is what I'm ideally looking for. Especially with baby #2 on the way and maternity leave in the near future. My max price is 600 (ideally, plus a little if I find it). But on the flip side I have been studying photgraphy and do think I can start charging. I'm controlling and manipulating my images the way I want. SOCC I am nailing what I want 90% of the time. I'm really happy I joined this site bc god I HAVE LEARNED SO SO SO Much! So I do want to get a lens that will last awhile, it will be primarily personally BUT I am in the process of studying putting omething together business wise pt.

So the new question I ask myself is vc worth 250$ more?
Thanks for the article .SimO. I'll def read into it and I'll also google and look for some more atricles tamron vs sigma. I know canon is out of my price range. (wish it wasnt hahahaha!)

 

[Big Mike]

Big Mike. The lens that I was talking about in specific was the ones equivilant to the canon 17-55 2.8 usm

Well, Sigma has an 18-50mm F2.8 (possibly even two versions) and they have a 17-50mm F2.8. When comparing one lens to another, we really need to know which version you're looking at.

So the new question I ask myself is vc worth 250$ more?

Another tough question. On a fairly wide lens like this, VC (IS/VR/OS etc) isn't as useful as it is on a telephoto lens...because it's simply easier to handhold a shorter lens and get sharp shots.
Also, if you read several reviews of the new Tamron 17-50mm VC, you will probably see that some people are saying that it's not as sharp as the older (non VC) version. I don't know how much stock I put into that, but I don't think I've seen any reviews that said it was clearly better (VC not withstanding).
So give the (no cost) choice, I'd probably go with the VC version...but since we're already compromising away from the 'best' lens to save money, I think the non-VC version offers the most 'bang for the buck'.
I had it and only sold it because I upgraded to a full frame camera.

 

[RebeccaAPhotography]

Yea I wish I had the $$ for the canon wish Santa clause was real haha!! I really really liked that lens a lot!! To the point I hugged it when I shipped it back Hahahaha!! I really really happy with how my photos came out that I had rented it for.

 

[.SimO.]

I agree with Mike, I don't think you would be dissatisfied with the non-vc Tamron 17-50. And for cost, that would be your best bet on new glass for saving the most cash.

And I believe the conversation was regarding all the fixed 2.8 lenses correct?