Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 7, 2007, 11:51 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
yohy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 120
Default

Greetings all,

I am buying an EOS 30D and am considering between two lenses as my walk-around/starter lens: The Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM versus the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 DC Macro.

Any thoughts?

Y oh Y

PS. I'd love to buy the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, but I doubt it's worth the price.



yohy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 7, 2007, 8:04 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 185
Default

one vote for the 17-55 .love mine .best lens i have ever had .
camerageak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 5:28 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

As already mentioned in your other thread I've had the 17-70 Sigma on both Konica Minolta 5D and my Canon 30D so very happy with the results it puts out.

I've used the 17-85 Canon as my uncle has it however I'm not so keen on this as it is too dark for my liking which reduced the ability to be as creative.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 6:39 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

yohy wrote:
Quote:
PS. I'd love to buy the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, but I doubt it's worth the price.
You don't have to spend this price for a similar performance!
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is very good for much less and the new Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 looks to be stellar (in the Pentax mount) - I've seen recent ads in photographic magazine for this lens so they should be hitting the store shelves now!

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 8:13 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Notice though that the Sigma is not a constant f2.8, it's a 2.8-4.5 and the 2.8 is at the wide end (where it is arguably less useful).

I don't personally generally worry about CA and distortion they are easy to fix if they occur.

So the Sigma has a 1/2 to 1-stop advantage depending on the focal length, but no IS and no USM, and slightly less range. I think most people agree the Sigma is probably a bit sharper, and of course a bit better Macro 1:2 v 1:5. That's quite a difference - 1:2 is more than good enough for flowers and butterflies for example.

So I guess it depends on what you generally take photos of as to whether the quieter and faster AF and the IS and the range are more important than the little bit extra speed, macroand extra sharpness.

The Sigma is also only about 60% of the cost of the Canon.

There is of course no single right answer for everyone, it depends on which of the tradeoffs are important to you.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 9:23 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

It all depends what you want,, but to someone who knows how do you check to see if you have a good copy?
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 10:42 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
yohy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 120
Default

hercules wrote:
Quote:
It all depends what you want,, but to someone who knows how do you check to see if you have a good copy?
Hercules, I do not understand what you mean by the following words: "[T]o someone who knows how do you check to see if you have a good copy." Please explain.
yohy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 1:54 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

yohy wrote:
Quote:
hercules wrote:
Quote:
It all depends what you want,, but to someone who knows how do you check to see if you have a good copy?
Hercules, I do not understand what you mean by the following words: "[T]o someone who knows how do you check to see if you have a good copy." Please explain.
Well i just wanted to know if anybody in this lenses forum that know about em, if they could let us know how to tell a good copy from a bad, but guess not.
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 2:45 PM   #9
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Not sure how specifically I would tell if you had a bad lens without having one known to be good next to it, however one of the Sigma 17-70's I had was not focusing correctly which is quite easily noticeableand if you are not getting sharp results at a good shutter speed and say f5.6 there is something wrong too. The more lenses you shoot with the easier it becomes to tell if there is a problem.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 2:47 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
yohy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 120
Default

hercules wrote:
Quote:
yohy wrote:
Quote:
hercules wrote:
Quote:
It all depends what you want,, but to someone who knows how do you check to see if you have a good copy?
Hercules, I do not understand what you mean by the following words: "[T]o someone who knows how do you check to see if you have a good copy." Please explain.
Well i just wanted to know if anybody in this lenses forum that know about em, if they could let us know how to tell a good copy from a bad, but guess not.
A good copy of what? Do you mean that some lenses of brand Xare not really manufactured by company x? (e.g., a "Sigma" lens might be manufactured illegally and not actually be from Sigma, the company?)
yohy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 PM.