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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 9, 2008, 10:57 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I currently own a Sigma 10-20mm to cover the super wide end, and a Canon 70-200mm F/4 to cover the super telephoto.

I'm thinking of adding a walk-around lens to my arsenal. My current thoughts are either a Canon 17-85mm F/-5.6 IS, or a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5.

I am attracted to the 17-85 because of the IS / low light capability, however I think the Sigma is probably a little sharper, has better build quality, and is slightly smaller (and slightly lower cost).

I'd appreciate your thoughts.
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 9, 2008, 11:54 AM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I think your descriptions are wrong (referring to the Canon as an f/4 lens and the Sigma as an f/2.8-3.5 lens).

The Canon 17-85 IS is an f/4-5.6 lens (drops down to f/5.6 on it's longer end).

The Sigma 17-70mm DC is an f/2.8-4.5 lens.

You can see some comparisons of them here:

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/17701785

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2008, 12:05 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Hi JimC,
Your right - I updated my descriptions of the lenses.
I've read that review already, thanks.
I'm hoping to get a few other opinions from general users on this forum.
Thanks, Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2008, 1:18 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
I currently own a Sigma 10-20mm to cover the super wide end, and a Canon 70-200mm F/4 to cover the super telephoto.

I'm thinking of adding a walk-around lens to my arsenal. My current thoughts are either a Canon 17-85mm F/-5.6 IS, or a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5.

I am attracted to the 17-85 because of the IS / low light capability, however I think the Sigma is probably a little sharper, has better build quality, and is slightly smaller (and slightly lower cost).

I'd appreciate your thoughts.
I had both the 17-85 and 17-70 and preferred the 17-85 because of the IS, BUT i have now sold the 17-85 and just bought the Tamron 17-50 i never thought it would be that sharp and it is sharper than the sigma 17-70, and it also continuous f2.8 some test shots i took you don't need IS with a lens like the tamron the tamron 17-50 is a lens to consider
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2008, 2:59 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Thanks Hercules.

I may be prejudiced, but I've never found the Tamron build quality to be up to the level of Sigma.

I have since sold almost all my Tamron's (even though they are pretty okay lenses for the money).

However, I will take a closer look at the Tamron.
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2008, 3:42 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
Thanks Hercules.

I may be prejudiced, but I've never found the Tamron build quality to be up to the level of Sigma.

I have since sold almost all my Tamron's (even though they are pretty okay lenses for the money).

However, I will take a closer look at the Tamron.
You have probably read this but actually the 17-50 has a pretty good build, http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/28...report--review
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2008, 1:31 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Cyberf828's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 659
Default

I go in some iteresting areas when I do my photo walks so I like to carry two lenses. I like to use my Canon 17-40 F4 and my Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS. I am pretty quick at changing them out so it isn't a issue with me in that deptment.
Cyberf828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 12:51 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Please see entry below.
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 12:54 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I bought the Sigma 17-70 over the Canon 17-85 IS because I was more interested in the build quality, optical quality (especially at 17mm) and the macro ability - more than I was interested in the further reach of the 85mm of the Canon lens or the low light IS capability of the Canon.

The Sigma 17-70 is cheaper by $70 than the Canon. One could ask why I didn't go for some of the other offerings out there, 17-50's, 18-50's. I looked at my budget and the type of shooting I do, and I can't justify a more expensive lenses (sorry, I'm not that good!) - lol.

So after exhaustive research and image comparisons on PBASE, Sigma won me over. Now I will have a Sigma 10-20 (love this lens), and Sigma 17-70 and a Canon 70-200 F/4. I hope I love the Sigma 17-70 as much as I love the Sigma 10-20.

Are these three lenses my ideal for the Canon 20D? If I were doing it all over again, I would have probably looked at the Sigma 70-200 over the Canon 70-200 F/4. However, back when I bought the Canon 70-200 it was considerably cheaper than the Sigma 70-200 (the difference in price between them has since narrowed) and the Canon 70-200 was lighter than the Sigma (which matters).

So if I were to buy a Canon body right now, I'd have bought the Sigma 10-20, Sigma 17-70, and the Sigma 70-200 and never looked back. I guess I'm becoming a Sigma person!
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 2:43 PM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Let us know how you like it. It seems to get pretty good user reviews.

As for the Canon 70-200mm f/4L, it's an incredibly sharp lens by most accounts, so I doubt the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 could touch it for image quality. If you need the extra stop for low light, that would be different.

JimC 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 10:23 AM.