f/3.5-5.6 with IS, or f/2.8-4.5 with no IS, which is more important for sharpness?

[Treymac]

Hey guys. I'm looking for a new walk-around lens, and currently it's narrowed down to either:

Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
and
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC IF Macro

The max range doesn't matter too much since I already have a 70-300mm, and the macro doesn't matter either because I plan to buy a Canon 100mm macro lens in the future.

The only things that matter is that one has image stabalization, while the other has a lower stop. Which is more important in getting a sharper image?

P.s.
What are "DC" and "IF"?

Thanks.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I can tell you right now with or without it, the 17-70 will becuase of the narrower zoom range. There are fewer comprises that need to be made in the design.

 

[usayit]

What are "DC" and "IF"?

It says right on their website:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses.asp

 

[RyanLilly]

Also the IS won't help if you can't get a fast enough shutter speed.
I second the 17-70

 

[SommarShade]

All depends if you want to walk around in low light shooting buildings, or in the sun shooting race cars, or in the sun shooting flowers, or at night shooting race cars.

no one lens will "do it all"

Is money an object ?

Will you be shooting closer or further?

will these be stationary, and will you be using a tripod at all ?

 

[Treymac]

All depends if you want to walk around in low light shooting buildings, or in the sun shooting race cars, or in the sun shooting flowers, or at night shooting race cars.

no one lens will "do it all"

Is money an object ?

Will you be shooting closer or further?

will these be stationary, and will you be using a tripod at all ?

Money is somewhat of an object, probably in the $500 range. Most of my stuff is wider angle anyways, and it's generally done hand held. I plan to take pictures of buildings, but not much in low light. Maybe at sunset at the darkest. And possibly a night shot if I have a tripod. I also plan to take pictures of flowers. I don't think I'll do much fast shooting of things such as race cars. So, most of my stuff is in the day time or stationary things, and if at night, I use a tripod, but still of stationary subjects.

 

[SommarShade]

I wouldnt buy either of those lenses, not that they are bad or horrible, but why sacrifice quality for zoom range your not going to use. not to mention the extra weight.

You asked about sharpness, so Im thinking you want quality !
For what your shooting I dont think the IS is going to be worth your money. You can rule out any F4 L lens (17-40 or 24-70) within your cost area since the F4 will kill you in lower light.

Look into the 28-75, or 17-50 pro models that Tamron makes.
about 400 bucks each. and they are 2.8 all the way through.
These are very very sharp lenses.

Trust me you dont want your aperature moving all the time its horrible for
calculating optimal sharpness on the fly when your shooting.

If you want to put down 1200 - 1600 $ you should check out the L primes and L wide zooms 17-40 - 24-70 that canon makes. But thats a lot of money for a walk around lens.

trust me the quality on the wider ranges 2.8 is way better then the 18-200 "super" lens. look at the marketing, they market the one to portrait and landscape shooters, and the "all in one " lenses to tourists.

Just looking out...

 

[Treymac]

Hey Thorhammer. Is this the Tamron 17-50mm your talking about:

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF17-50mm-Aspherical-Canon-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI

 

[Mystwalker]

Since you already have the 70-300, go for the 17-70.

 

[soylentgreen]

If it's sharpness an performance you seek and with that budget, I would look at the EF 17-40 f/4L. Tack on the EF 50mm f/1.8 for the gap and your set. Sorry for adding more eggs to your basket, but its worth a look IMO.