Image Stabilized Zooms- Canon 17-55 vs Sigma 17-50 OS

E

eco_bach

Well-known member
Hi
Ok picked up the 17-55 IS after owning the Tamron 17-50 NON VC.
Did some quick tests, found the center sharpness better than the Tammy but the Tammy was optically superior in edge sharpness and lack of any noticeable CA.

The IS on the Canon works great but found you have to avoid ANY horizontal panning.

Now that I've played with the 17-55, considering one more alternative, the Sigma 17-50 OS. If price were no object would keep the Canon, but figure I might be able to replace the Canon with the sigma and use the $500 toward another lens...

Only real drawback I can see from what I've read is the very short focus throw on the Sigma...but I already have a 50 1.4 Super takumar which is my preferred choice for pull focus shots and am contemplating as my next lens the 100 2.8L macro.

Anyone use the Sigma and can comment, or point me to any reviews comparing its image stabilising abilities? Photozone.de places the Sigma ahead of the Tamron VC in terms of optical quality.
 
In case anyone is interested
http://lensreviews.1001noisycameras.com/sigma-17-50mm-f28-ex-dc-os/
http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/...s-canon-17-55mm-f2-8-and-tamron-17-50mm-f2-8/

I concur with the poor autofcous on the Tammy, actually sent my 17-50 in for calibration because I thought maybe something was wrong with it....shooting wide open on a test chart using AF on average only 70-80% of the shots were in focus.
Seems that the sigma is better than the 17-55 for close focus and for landscapes once you stop down past 5.6...
I guess knowing the strengths and weaknesses of any lens you own is what matters.
 
The focus on the sigma is super loose. Canon is tighter but IQ is similar for video.
 
eco_bach said:
Anyone use the Sigma and can comment, or point me to any reviews comparing its image stabilising abilities?
Click to expand...

For video usage Sigma's optical stabilization is slighty better than Canon's IMO but that doesnt mean Canon is bad. Sigma is as they usually are, so-so optical performance, but they manage to get decent build quality unlike Canon were you have to get an L-lens to have a lens that doesn't feel like a toy. I've scrapped my Sigma lenses, except for the 20 1.8 coming in. I used to preach about the 17-50 but there are better choices out there.
 
Has anyone used any of these 3 lenses for photos? I'm considering the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 2.8 over the Canon 17-55 based on price alone, but I wonder how sharp each lens is at 2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top