Canon 18-85 is f4-5.6 vs Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5
- Thread starter ssray
- Start date
- Messages
- 24
- Name
- Tony
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd go for the Canon. Despite its higher price I think the optics are better quality. Sigma has had a reputation of variable quality - that said I have a 55-200 sigma which gives good results.
AD_Capturs
Mummy, where do babies come from?
- Messages
- 4,571
- Name
- Anthony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
POAH said:
Lol +1
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,848
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
tamron 17-50mm without a doubt dor that money
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As Jin says, there's no such thing as a Canon 18-85.
The Canon 17-85 is ... OK. It's a more useful focal length range than the standard kit lens, the IS works, it's ... OK. Build quality is a bit plasticky. But I think a bit overpriced at £300ish.
The Canon 15-85 is a wonderful lens for a walkaround zoom. Great build quality, really sharp, and the difference between 17mm and 15mm at the wide end is a lot more than you'd think. It costs twice as much as the 17-85 but it is twice as good, or at least it is for the kinds of things I would want to do with it (which may not be the same as you).
I don't have any direct experience of the Sigma 17-70 so I'm not qualified to comment on it. I've used the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC) and it's a good lens; very very sharp and of course f/2.8 - but a restricted zoom range and so-so build quality.
The Canon 17-85 is ... OK. It's a more useful focal length range than the standard kit lens, the IS works, it's ... OK. Build quality is a bit plasticky. But I think a bit overpriced at £300ish.
The Canon 15-85 is a wonderful lens for a walkaround zoom. Great build quality, really sharp, and the difference between 17mm and 15mm at the wide end is a lot more than you'd think. It costs twice as much as the 17-85 but it is twice as good, or at least it is for the kinds of things I would want to do with it (which may not be the same as you).
I don't have any direct experience of the Sigma 17-70 so I'm not qualified to comment on it. I've used the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC) and it's a good lens; very very sharp and of course f/2.8 - but a restricted zoom range and so-so build quality.