Sigma17-70 V Canon 17-85

[Chaz Photos]

Any pros and cons with the two lens
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro v. Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM

[bumfluff]

I've just ordered the Sigma, should be here tomorrow. After everything I read it sounded like it was much better value. I think it is meant to be better at either end, but not as strong in the middle and in my opinion it was more important to have good performance at the wide end than in the middle where it wouldn't cost too much to get a nifty fifty. The canon does have better reach though.

[pbucks]

I can't comment on the Canon, having never used one.
I have just bought the Sigma though after borrowing one for a day's shooting.

Absolutely love it!!!

[instigator]

I had to make the same choice, was very glad i chose the sigma.
It may not be as long as the canon but its faster on the wide end and although its not a true macro lens it can focus pretty close, which in my opinion makes it far more versatile than the canon. Its also pretty sharp and build quality is quite good.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2427/3749395435_6083404146_b.jpg

Here's an example of the sigma shot at 19mm F4.5 1/60.

[Chaz Photos]

Looks like I dont need to buy the canon one then?
I have the Sigma 17-70 but liked the IS on the Canon one

[instigator]

if you already have the sigma then i wouldnt really bother with gettin the canon 17-85,
if you really wanna upgrade then i would suggest the 17-55 2.8 IS.
This is better than both of them and has IS.