Canon v sigma v ? Walkabout

jmsjabb

jmsjabb

Messages
454
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking for a walkabout lens for my 40d. I am looking at the Canon 17-85 F4-5.5.
This looks a good lens but a little slow.
How would it compare to say the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5?
What else at sub £200 secondhand would you look at?
Would I be better going faster? I would mainly be outdoors, but would want some indoor shooting to.
 
I've had both, and preferred the 17-85. Contrary to all the hype, I found the 17-70 to be pretty ordinary (and photozone.de seems to back this up in their tests) and in some respects, even the 18-55is is better than the 17-70 (except between 56 and 70 of course ;)). Perhaps the 17-70 OS version is better, I can't comment as I haven't used it.

To get a significant jump in quality you do need to look towards the 17-50 / 18-50 f2.8 lenses.


.
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
To get a significant jump in quality you do need to look towards the 17-50 / 18-50 f2.8 lenses.
Click to expand...
Or 15-85 IS. Fantastically sharp lens, brilliant IS system, but at f5.6 is a couple of stops slower (and 30-35mm longer) than the 17-xx's
 
arad85 said:
Or 15-85 IS. Fantastically sharp lens, brilliant IS system, but at f5.6 is a couple of stops slower (and 30-35mm longer) than the 17-xx's
Click to expand...

That is another good suggestion, and probably more sensible if James wants something with reach over 50mm.
 
Dave1 said:
That is another good suggestion, and probably more sensible if James wants something with reach over 50mm.
Click to expand...
But unfortunately not under £200 used :(
 
I have had Tamron before and felt it cheap feeling. Is the 17-50 a good lens? Looking online, it seems it may suffer AF hunt.
Going back to the top, is there much in the sigma 17-70 OS and non OS models other than the stability?
The canon has IS, so you are looking at a 2 stop boost, but I suppose it will still be dark inside?
 
Will be keeping an eye on this one as I'm looking at one of these as an upgrade to my kit lens :)
 
Dave1 said:
For that money, the best image quality you can buy in a walkabout lens would then be the Tamron 17-50 nonVC.
Click to expand...

I've been on the lookout for one of these; last few used ones auctioned on ebay have gone for £220+. Which seems daft when you can get a grey import new one for about £240, but there you go, that's an efficient market for you.

They may go cheaper on the classifieds here, I wouldn't know, my postcount isn't high enough to see them yet [cough] :)
 
2nd hand sigma 18-50mm f2.8 "macro" (not a true macro just sigmas slang for lower min focus distance) might fall into that budget. the 2 copies we had were both fantastically sharp and contrasty.
 
I've got a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 Macro and I find it a great lens. However the only reason I have that over the Tamron is because I bought it as part of a kit. From my experiences there isn't much IQ difference between the Tamron and Sigma, however the Sigma focuses faster in low light and the Tamron is wider. The Sigma is called an 18-50mm however in reality it is actually a 18.5-50mm so the extra 1.5mm at the wide end does make a difference.

I hope that helps.
 
I've had both the Sigma 17-70 non OS and the 17-85 IS, I thought selling the 17-85 was the better bet, but then after, I regretted selling the 17-85 IS and keeping the 17-70 and wish it had been the other way around.
 
DaveKing said:
, however the Sigma focuses faster in low light
Click to expand...

I think I answered your assertion elsewhere, but I didn't find the AF performance all that good on the Sigma, and the Tamron seemed better to me (though I would admit I didn't have the lenses at the same time).

Reviews do seem to back up my opinion:

Two reviews from the-digital-picture.com, which reflect the same way I viewed the AF performance.

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens' AF is rather fast, but the high pitch buzz made by the focus motor is deceptive - making the lens sound slower. I found AF accuracy to be quite good with relatively few missed shots (that were not my fault at least). This is an internal-focusing lens - It does not change length during focusing and the front element does not rotate.
Click to expand...

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens' AF sound is relatively quiet but not silent like an HSM or USM lens. AF speed is on the slow side of average. AF accuracy was also on the low side of average. When shooting the very well-lit ideal focus point on ISO 12233 chart tests using AF, every other image was completely out of focus at 18mm f/2.8 and AF was inconsistent at 24mm. In real world use, I missed a noticeably higher number of shots than I should have. AF performance was especially poor in low light (where focus hunting is frequent). Results were also poor in AI Servo mode.
Click to expand...
 
Really don't know now....
Canon 17-85 seems to be conciddered slow.
Tamron seems sharp but has focus issues.
Sigmas seem the best bet, but only if you get a good one.
Looking like this Sigma 17 mm - 70 mm F/2.8-4.0 Lens would be the best bet.....but then at least two on here disagree...

Go on, which one?
 
jmsjabb said:
Really don't know now....
Canon 17-85 seems to be conciddered slow.
Tamron seems sharp but has focus issues.
Sigmas seem the best bet, but only if you get a good one.
Looking like this Sigma 17 mm - 70 mm F/2.8-4.0 Lens would be the best bet.....but then at least two on here disagree...

Go on, which one?
Click to expand...

If it was me, the 17-70 would come last. If you don't want the Tamron (and don't believe all the AF stories, it isn't weak), then go for the Sigma, either the 18-50 or the newer 17-50. If not, then the 17-85. Next in my preference would be the 18-55IS kit lens, and only then would come the 17-70.

Of course, only IMO, and based on my experience with the non OS version of the 17-70.


.
 
Last edited:
I got the Sigma 17-70 last year to replace my kit lens and in my opinion, the Sigma quality is so much better than the kits lens, with the added bonus of a longer reach and being faster.
 
I too own the 17-70 OS version and it was a huge step up from my bog standard kit lenses. Contray to what I'm reading above, I did hear that the non-OS version had better optics and provided better results... but that was only hearsay.

I wouldn't put you off the 17-70 OS...I love it but then I haven't had too much experience with the above lenses either.
 
come on guys. Sub £200 is what I put. I have £200 - £250 tops.
 
There are plenty of suggestions there, unfortunately it doesn't always work out that the fast/sharp/flexible lens we want is within budget. So either compromise on something, raise your budget, or save for longer until you can afford the one you really want.
 
I second the 18-135mm suggestion. Easily got for around £200 2nd hand and decent enough quality for the price. The range is pretty versatile so you could use it outdoors and indoors. Mine stays on my camera most of the time.

Given the money I'd swap it for a 15-85mm but that's twice the price!
 
r1skbreak3r said:
I second the 18-135mm suggestion. Easily got for around £200 2nd hand and decent enough quality for the price. The range is pretty versatile so you could use it outdoors and indoors. Mine stays on my camera most of the time.

Given the money I'd swap it for a 15-85mm but that's twice the price!
Click to expand...

And I have a minty one in classifieds lower than the op budget ;) 185 del, thought I should say price so as to not confuse with another in their at 240 ;)
 
Last edited:
DaveKing said:
Seriously go for either a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 or a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8. You won't be disappointed with the images from either!
Click to expand...

+1, either of these would be a big improvement over kit, having the constant f2.8 is another advantage.

Both should be able to found for around £200.
 
I have had an 18-135 and didn't rate it. Not sharp enough
 
Right, You've got loads of suggestions there, with everyone chipping in on a couple of lenses:

Sigma 17-70 non OS
Canon 17-85 WITH IS
Tamrom 17-50 F2.8 non VC

Thats your choices, whats stopping you?
 
I've had a sigma 17-70mm and found it to be a great lens, and well built, as well as being sharp. Ive now got the OS version and this i have found to be just as good.
I would go for the 17-70 again if i needed.
I had a sigma 18-50mm F2.8, but found this to be a rubbish copy, but its also supposed to be a good lens. So any lens you buy SH you will still need to check it. by from a good source.
 
I've the 17-85 IS and it's a great lens, I like mine and get great shots with it. You should be able to pick one up in your price range

Incidently, it was one of the kit lenses for the 40D
 
Well, I have kind of decided on the Tamron but the ones I was following on Ebay have exceeded £200 by a long margin. Even the Sigmas seem to be fetching good money. Is it because it is Christmas?
 
jmsjabb said:
Well, I have kind of decided on the Tamron but the ones I was following on Ebay have exceeded £200 by a long margin. Even the Sigmas seem to be fetching good money. Is it because it is Christmas?
Click to expand...

Prices have gone up a bit, time of year, Far East natural disasters etc. The Tamron also seems to be getting more desirable and so of course the age old facts of supply and demand push the price up.

Keep an eye on the classifieds, they do come up around the £200 mark here.
 
Crikey I've never read so many differing opinions! My head is spinning :LOL:
 
jmsjabb said:
I have had an 18-135 and didn't rate it. Not sharp enough
Click to expand...
Agreed, I had one as a kit lens, and soon got rid. I replaced it with a Sigma 17-70 OS which is altogether much better. The non-OS version is supposed to be as good optically, and should be in your budget.
 
Have today plumped for the Tamron lens. I have reservations in quality terms, and length, but we will see. It may be for sale again if I want to get to 70mm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top