Schould I keep my Canon lens or go to Sigma?

Hi there!

I have a Canon eos 20D with a 17-85-lens. This is a great lens but since I more and more take pictures in low-light conditions I might consider a 2.8 zoom-lens. Canons L-lenses would be fantastic, but they are simply too expensive.

Therefor I was wondering if it would be wise to buy a Sigma 18-50 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8 (with loss of wide-angle off course). They are a lot more affordable than my well-overprized Canon and offer some extra usability, except for the zoom-range. I wanted to know which one is superior in image quality.

What I really appreciate on Canon-lenses is the super-silent USM. Before I bought this camera, I had a Minolta 505 Super with an old Tamron 28-200 which I used mostly with manual focus because of the great amounts irritating noise the (extremely slow) autofocus produces.
As far as I know, the above mentioned Sigma-lenses do not have an HSM, so I want to know if they make a lot of noise. I don't want to downgrade off course.

So, to make a long story short: should I keep my 17-85 or should I make the step to the Sigma's?

Thanks!

Eric

One thing's for sure, when shooting in low light there's nothing like a fast lens. I really don't think of an f2.8 as a fast lens, but that's about as fast as you will find with almost any zoom lens. What about adding a fast prime lens or two? Canon's 50 f1.8 is supposed to be a great lens and a bargain. It will be quite a few stops faster than what you've got. I'm a Nikon shooter so no personal experience with these lenses, but Canon's 24 f1.4 and 85 f1.2 are supposed to be excellent too (although very expensive).

Fast lenses not only give you the option of using those apertures, but also the viewfinder will be brighter and autofocus will work much better. Again, one stop or so isn't going to help a whole lot but you'll see a big improvement with an f1.4 or f1.8 lens.

I'm with Steve, I think the 50mm f/1.8 would be a great lens. I don't have one yet, but it's on my ever expanding wish list. As for Sigma lenses, I only have 1, and it's a 170-500mm. It's a few years old now so I'm sure they have made some improvements on there non-HSM autofocuse systems, at least I hope they have. My Sigma is VERY slow, and makes more noise than I would like to hear, espesially when trying to shoot wildlife. Granted the max apperture at 500mm is something like f/6.3 so that could have more to do with the slow focusing. This is my only experience with a Sigma lens and it's on the oposite side of the spectrum as to what you're looking for, so maybe it's not that much help for you. I think Sigma has earned a pretty good reputaion for their lenses so I don't think you should have too much to worry about. I would find a cameras store, and try one out before I dropped my hard earned cash on one tho. I have an your drive to the nearest camera store, and for things like this, it's always worth the trip. Then I go home and order it from B&H, linking to that site, from this one of course. :) Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs1973

Granted the max apperture at 500mm is something like f/6.3 so that could have more to do with the slow focusing.

---

F5.6 is usually the limit of what AF cameras can handle, and even though you're only a half stop or so over that the aperture is probably the main reason why it's slow. I had a Sigma 500 f7.2 that would AF... eventually...:)

They do have some pretty nice lenses. I'm looking at one now, the 10-20 f4-5.6 for DSLR's. That's some serious angle of view there, folks! The reviews are really good and the price is reasonable. I've heard good and bad things about every brand of lens, and most lenses out there are really pretty good.

It's just a matter of knowing what compromises you can settle for, and this is a personal choice based on how you want to use the lens. Some of them are image quality at a wide open aperture, image quality stopped down to about f5.6 or f8, AF speed, distortion, sharpness and of course the price you'll pay for the lens. The 50 f1.8 probably comes as close to hitting all of these points as anything you'll ever find.

I have a 50mm f/1.8 and it's sharp, cheap, and fast. I haven't tried it out too extensively yet, but my initial shots have been quite impressive for under $100 CAD. However, that being said, I am also picking up a 24-70 Sigma EX f/2.8, it's actually inthe mail right now. The reviews are great, and quite reputable. Sigma has some great lenses there for a consumer tight on a budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Instant_Myrage

Hi there!

I have a Canon eos 20D with a 17-85-lens. This is a great lens but since I more and more take pictures in low-light conditions I might consider a 2.8 zoom-lens. Canons L-lenses would be fantastic, but they are simply too expensive.

Therefor I was wondering if it would be wise to buy a Sigma 18-50 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8 (with loss of wide-angle off course). They are a lot more affordable than my well-overprized Canon and offer some extra usability, except for the zoom-range. I wanted to know which one is superior in image quality.

What I really appreciate on Canon-lenses is the super-silent USM. Before I bought this camera, I had a Minolta 505 Super with an old Tamron 28-200 which I used mostly with manual focus because of the great amounts irritating noise the (extremely slow) autofocus produces.
As far as I know, the above mentioned Sigma-lenses do not have an HSM, so I want to know if they make a lot of noise. I don't want to downgrade off course.

So, to make a long story short: should I keep my 17-85 or should I make the step to the Sigma's?

Thanks!

Eric

---

There seems to be a compatability issue with the Sigma lenses and 20D. Otherwise, based on the reviews here at PR, I'de say jump right on the 24-70 EX DG macro. Being built for 35mm cameras It would have even better image quality on a digital SLR.
Mark.

Thanks for the several advices, people!

A prime is indeed superior in quality and aperture, but I am too used to the flexibility of a zoom. My budget is also relatively limited, so I can't afford more great primes and still have a lot of different focal distances. So I'd like to stay with zooms. Off course I'd rather like an L, but being 3000EUR for only 2 lenses (16-35 and 24-70) is a little too much for me. I am not a pro, but an enthousiast, although I sometimes use photography professionally - I am a graphic designer.

The only thing that keeps me from buying a Sigma is the absence of USM (or HSM). But one of these days I'll just go to a retailer who has them in stock (but that doesn't seem to be evident here...).

Enjoy the holidays!

Eric

Don't give up on primes yet. The consumer primes are razor sharp, and much cheaper than their "L" counterparts. If you pick up a 50mm f1.4 USM, 85mm f1.8 USM, and the 135 f2L USM, you've got a nice range in addition to your current zoom, for much less than what you'd pay for two f2.8L zooms. Sure, you do have to run about and do the zooming with your feet, but the image quality is visibly better than any pro f2.8 zoom. Just my two bits. I love the flexibility of fast zooms, but primes are still visibly better if somewhat inconvenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionheart

Don't give up on primes yet. The consumer primes are razor sharp, and much cheaper than their "L" counterparts. If you pick up a 50mm f1.4 USM, 85mm f1.8 USM, and the 135 f2L USM, you've got a nice range in addition to your current zoom, for much less than what you'd pay for two f2.8L zooms. Sure, you do have to run about and do the zooming with your feet, but the image quality is visibly better than any pro f2.8 zoom. Just my two bits. I love the flexibility of fast zooms, but primes are still visibly better if somewhat inconvenient.

---

Interestingly enough, I have all the three primes listed above, and all of the 2.8 brotherhood. It took me a while to find them all, at the right price, but I can cover 16mm to 200mm with 2.8 aperture. My very best photos (IMO) have all been taken with primes, however. If you want the very, very best quality, a prime is it.

Now, this is not to say my 2.8's gather dust. Far from it. I use them most of the time. For the photography I do, sports, concerts, people in social environments, the fast zooms are the best compromise. They provide fantastic image quality, and they are flexible for on the fly composition. With a 70-200 2.8L a 550EX, with a battery pack, I can go clickclickclick while shooting runway models and get 8 shots in a row that will all (mostly) be in focus, and which will be of outstanding image quality.

But, if you want that last little bit of "ahhhhh!!" for your pictures, or shoot in very low light frequently, then primes are the answer. The 135 f/2, in particular, is the best lens I have ever used. It is just unreal.

One thing you should know though is that once you have used fast zooms or primes, there ain't no going back. Your consumer zoom will be left on the shelf. The difference is about the same as a jet v. a propeller plane. No comparison, except that they both fly.

Hi Stephen!!! Good to hear from you. I was wondering if you were around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Lutz

Interestingly enough, I have all the three primes listed above, and all of the 2.8 brotherhood. .

---

Yeah, me too :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Lutz

.
But, if you want that last little bit of "ahhhhh!!" for your pictures, or shoot in very low light frequently, then primes are the answer. The 135 f/2, in particular, is the best lens I have ever used. It is just unreal.
.

---

Oh yeah!!! The 135 f2L is my absolute fav prime.
Here's one of my fav shots with this lens 1/125 sec at f2, hand held, iso 1600, noise ninja filtered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionheart

Hi Stephen!!! Good to hear from you. I was wondering if you were around.

Yeah, me too :)

Oh yeah!!! The 135 f2L is my absolute fav prime.
Here's one of my fav shots with this lens 1/125 sec at f2, hand held, iso 1600, noise ninja filtered.

---

Hello there! I;m like Halley's comet. I disappear for a long-time, then suddenly appear again. :)

I use my 135 for a few very specific things: low light concert photography, "No flash" sports like gymnastics, and portraits. It excels at all three.

Here are a couple taken with the 135, of a drummer at a concert and of a gymnast. Both were shot at 1600 ISO. Oh let's not forget the very affordable and superb 50 1.4. The last photo was taken at ISO 3200, wide open, in a very dark bar. Converted to B&W. My friend Daphne is breathtakingly beautiful, and even with the noise, this is one of her favorite photos of herself because it captured HER, at a moment of joy. Primes can do that. Slow zooms with flash, well, they can do it, but not in poor light.