Your thoughts on Sigma 17-50 2.8 on Canon EOS 7D Body

Hi Everyone!

 

It's been awhile since I last posted something here. Anyways, I'm in the brink of replacing my kit lens and will

upgrade to a better optic soon. I am leaned towards the Sigma 17-50 2.8. From what I read, the features, build

quality, optics, etc. of this lens is somewhat superb and because of those attributes, I think it would be a good

choice (For Travel, General Purpose...). I would attach this on my Canon 7D, however, I saw one review that there

might be an issue when this lens is used with a semi-pro/professional camera body, likely in the resolution(IQ)

and focusing aspects. Hope to hear your thoughts about this matter. Thanks very much in advance!

<p>Like the 18-50 f2.8-4.5, the 17-50 f2.8 appears optimised the opposite way to how buyers would hope- for the longer end. I would prefer it to be softer in the standard or portrait range instead, but the Sigma has aberration & coma at the edges at the wide end. The former lens manual focus throw was too short to be accurate anyway. The convenience is great but I don't think it will satisfy discerning landscape shooters.</p>

<p>I was a strong fan of Sigma products in the 'nineties, when their lenses for manual focus bodies were often as good as the camera manufacturers' products and generally much less expensive. At that time one could, and I did, buy any Sigma lens with confidence.</p>

<p>Nowadays, the designs are as good as ever but the assembly and testing is very poor indeed. Two of the ultra wide zooms (full frame 17~35 and APS-C 10~20) that I tried had such severe decentring that only one side of the frame was usable. As a consequence of this experience, I would not buy any Sigma lens these days, unless I was able to test the specific item and return it if dissatisfied. </p>

<p>Hi Adrian, I have the sigma 17-50 2.8 OS and use it as one of my main lenses. With my copy at least I have been very impressed with it. It is sharp throughout the range, though it can be a little soft wide open stopping down even 1/3 of a stop for me helps. I would recommend the lens and haven't found any distortion or sharpness problems in real world situations. Here are a couple of recent shots from the lens, one at the wide end and one on the long end.<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/17433834<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/17433835</p>

<p>edit - I should add I use it on a 60D so the same sensor as your 7D</p>

<p>Sigma's <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock">service and QA is now actually quite good</a>.</p>

<p>I used the Sigma 17 – 50 on a t2i and liked it, although I used their 30mm 1.4 prime far more often: to me f 2.8 often wasn't wide enough on a APS-C body for the things I did. <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/sigma-17-50mm-f2.8-ex-dc-os-hsm-for-canon">The comparison here</a> should also help. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma's <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">service and QA is now actually quite good</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would be good if this is correct. I always feel sad to see a good brand go downhill.</p>

Thank you all for your responses. I guess there aren't really major issues with this lens on a 7D. For Sigma service concerns, I actually don't have any problems getting my Sigma 10-20 serviced, as our local store is rather willingly accommodating. Another prospective lens that I'm considering is the new Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. Will read reviews about this lens and weigh which one would well deserve to be in my gear list. Thanks again all!

<p>I have not used the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, but use its competitor, the 17-50mm 2.8 Tamron non VC. It has been a good lens so far, over 4 years now. I find its sharpness a cut below my 50mm 1.8 II. At 100% and f5.6 the 50mm is still very sharp, the Tamron not quite so. At 50% both are sharp. The Tamron is a good all-round lens, its versitility means that it generally sits on my 7D.</p>

<p>I tried both the 17-50 and 17-70 a few years ago (Nikon fit) to replace a broken 17-55 Nikon costing 3x the price <br>

The difference in IQ for both 17-50 and 17-70 was so insignificant; I decided on the 17-70 F2.8-4<br>

Its a a better lens than I expected and compared well with the Nikon, Its useful for portraits. it has a 9 bladed diaphragm so has surprisingly nice bokeh. By comparison my 24-105 F4 Canon; with similar field of view on FF on a 5D2; is very disappointing in that respect.<br>

I'd heartily recommend either and would go for the 17-50 if a constant F 2.8 is more important than 70mm.</p>

<p> </p>