Sigma equivalent of the 17-55 2.8?

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey there,

So I here that the 17-55mm IS 2.8 is a superb walkabout lens but it's a little pricey, does anyone have a comparison for a sigma or tokina/tamron for canon fit thats as good quality wise that is cheaper?
 
you mean the tamron,

Can anyone talk to the canon lens being worth double the price of the others?
 
joescrivens said:
ok, i'm pretty sure of that, but is it twice the price better?
Click to expand...

I personally don't think it is worth twice the price.
Many consider it as good as an L lens but Canon don't class it as L quality.
I would love this lens but I just can't justify the cost.
The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC and non VC versions may have their shortfalls against the Canon but the price is far more acceptable imho.
The non VC Tamron is very well respected and there are plenty of good photos taken with it.
Don't get me wrong, the Canon is an awesome lens, it just depends if you can justify the cost.
 
How about the Sigma 17-70? I've been considering this lens as an upgrade to the kit 18-55IS, and the focal length would also fit in with my Canon 70-300. What are people's views of the Sigma vs the Tamron?

Anything else that should also be considered, especially when considering I have the Canon 10-22 so starting at 24mm or 28 mm wouldn't really be that much of an issue.

Apologies for jumping in on the OP's thread, but at least it's all relevant to the original question.
 
hashcake said:
I personally don't think it is worth twice the price.
Many consider it as good as an L lens but Canon don't class it as L quality.
I would love this lens but I just can't justify the cost.
The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC and non VC versions may have their shortfalls against the Canon but the price is far more acceptable imho.
The non VC Tamron is very well respected and there are plenty of good photos taken with it.
Don't get me wrong, the Canon is an awesome lens, it just depends if you can justify the cost.
Click to expand...

^^This was my thoughts behind getting the Tamron VC.
If I had disposable cash to the tune of £700 I would have gone for the Canon, however I am pretty sure that the Tamron IQ is the same or very close to that of the Canon and I can live with the slower and noisier AF knowing that there is £300 change.
 
jnO said:
^^This was my thoughts behind getting the Tamron VC.
If I had disposable cash to the tune of £700 I would have gone for the Canon, however I am pretty sure that the Tamron IQ is the same or very close to that of the Canon and I can live with the slower and noisier AF knowing that there is £300 change.
Click to expand...

Will you shut up :D
No more UK stock until the end of the month so I am still waiting.
I knew I should have ordered one when I gave you and nifkin the heads up :P
 
hashcake said:
Will you shut up :D
No more UK stock until the end of the month so I am still waiting.
I knew I should have ordered one when I gave you and nifkin the heads up :P
Click to expand...

Especially as Clifton only had 2 orders that night.......and 10 units :p
 
I have the Sigma 17-70 on my 400d and its a fantastic little lens, very sharp but I think it can be a bit of a lottery to get a good copy. I would say from f4-f5.6 and at 24-50mm it comes very close to my 24-105. It struggles a bit in low light but I think its a good walk around on a crop camera.

Regards
 
another vote for the 17-70 here, good colours and really versatile. or as also mentioned the tamron 17-50 2.8 and the sigma 18-50 2.8. These are the quality main options without spending a fortune
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top