Canon 18-55 IS II OR Sigma 17-70mm lens?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by robert_thommes|1, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. I have a very limited budget which rules out lenses that would be top contenders for my needs right now.
    I had thought that this Sigma lens was rated higher than Canon's newer kit lens (IS II version). But on the lens comparison site Photozone, the Canon lens rated higher optically. I need one of these lenses for my upcoming trip to S. Utah for the majority of my landscape and scenic shots. Ideally something like the Canon 15-85 would be the lens of choice, but I don't have $650+ to spend.
    So which of these 2 lenses do you feel would be able to deliver the goods better? If you'd like, you might throw the Canon 17-85mm lens into the mix as well. I can get any of these lenses for within my budget of under $300. I'd prefer not to rent any lens.
    As always, thanks for your feedback. And please keep the topic to these 2(or 3) specific lenses.
  2. For anybody with an APS-C camera looking for an all-around lens on a budget, the 18-55 IS is a no-brainer. For a significant upgrade (15-85 IS) you need to pay A LOT more. I can't see how 3rd party options could be significantly better at that price.
    Personally I own the 17-85 IS. I bought it at the time when there was only the 18-55 non-IS. I like the 17-85, but would not consider it nowadays, because the 18-55 is so close and so much cheaper.
  3. I'd lean towards the Canon EF-S 18-55 IS MkII. It is an amazing deal, especially if you buy it used, and it is actually a
    pretty good performer. I'd seriously consider buying one used. KEH has them for ~$99. Also, do you own other lenses?
  4. As well, I'd suggest that the 18-55/IS (I or II - they are, for all intents and purposes, the same) used is one of the best deals out there. Easily it ranks up there w/ the nifty fifty (though obv. their use is completely different). It produces (IMDE) imagery on par or of better quality than the 17-85, though the 17-85 has FTM USM focus - the 18-55 IS is available used usually under $100.
    However, the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 DG OS HSM also retails for considerably more than your budget. Perhaps you've found a good deal on one?
  5. I own both the 18-55 IS and the original 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 (non OS) and would tell you which one is better if it wouldn't be a complete waste of time.
    what happened to the 17-50 f/2.8?
    That was purchased after you upgraded from the 18-55 IS you already owned:
  6. Traded the Tammy 17-50 for the Sigma BEFORE plans for trip to SW. Have not even used the Sigma yet. But I have someone interested in buying it. I need the better lens for the job of capturing the red rock colors and sharpness. So if either of the lenses in question seem to fare better on BOTH of these counts, that's the lens that will make the trip.
    I use these WA-Normal zoom lenses so seldom, that I have no real serious experience with any of them. Hence my thread being posted here.
    Rob, I could use your help, and opinion. But if you have a problem with my questions, please simply "step away from the computer".
  7. A warning sign of danger ahead doesn't "step away" and neither will I. Anyone contributing to one of your threads is wasting their time. I will continue to point this out as long as you continue to ask the same questions to which you already know the answers.
  8. Why ask the question if I already knew the answer? I just told you that I have very little experience with these ranged lenses. I have one only because "I feel I should". (Now there's a phrase you could dig your teeth into.) But with an upcoming venture, this lens will become MOST important.
    So do with this thread as you feel you must.
  9. I think Rob nailed it, you already have a lens that should be adequate. You'll be shooting stopped down in the f/8 to f/16 range so you should be fine.
    I'd suggest instead of obsessing over a different lens spend some money on a good tripod. It'll do more to improve your photos than swapping one kit lens for another.
    There are better lenses that would be worth making a change, but none that I know of that fit your current budget. On the other hand, you can get one helluva tripod for $300.
  10. [[Why ask the question if I already knew the answer? I just told you that I have very little experience with these ranged lenses.]]
    Your posting history and classifieds history provide ample evidence that you have a rather broad range of experience from which to draw, Robert. For some reason, either deliberate or not, you seem to abandon all knowledge when you approach a minor & subtle variation in specifications. You ask the same, basic, questions over, and over, and over again. You discard almost everything that has been offered as advice. In short, anyone offering comments here might as well be typing to the wind.
  11. I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that you had access to a 17-50/2.8 It is much better than either the 18-55, or the Sigma 17-70. I would expect it to outresolve, and give better color rendition than either of the others. I would have suggested it, but a budget of $300 puts it just out of reach.

Share This Page