Anyone have comparison of Sigma 18-125 and Canon 17-40 or Tamron 17-35?

[henry_minsky1]

I've got the Sigma 18-125 lens for my digital SLR, and I like it a lot.

 

But I have found that I am using wide angle a lot these days, and I am

wondering if there is significant improvement to be had in the image

quality by moving to the Tamron 17-35 or the Canon 17-40. If the

Tamron is close to the Canon performance, I would prefer the extra

speed of course.

 

Does anyone have any pointers to any side-by-side comparisons of the

Sigma 18-125 at wide angle with either the Tamron or the Canon?

[tim_pedone]

I was pondering the Tamron or the Canon as well. I decided on the Canon because it

wasn't *that* much more, had USM, Full Time Manual Focus, better resale value and a red

stripe :-). I also liked that it has an extra 5mm on the long end and can be used as my

"normal" lens. It's mounted on an Elan 7 so I actually get 17mm on the wide end. While I

can't speak for the Sigma, I can't see how a ~7x zoom can match the image quality of a

Canon L Zoom.

[johann_fuller]

My tests on the 18-125 show it to be very good at the wide end although much less impressive from about 85mm onwards. I've seen test images from the 17-40L that were not that stunning but there seems to be sample to sample to variation. Why not wait untill the new EFS lenses are released before you make a choice. If you are expecting significant increases in image quality moving to other zooms I think you are going to be dissapointed.

[yakim_peled1]

If you are "using wide angle a lot these days", and if your DSLR is the 300D, why not consider the new 10-22 USM?

 

BTW, I haven't used any but common sense dictates that the 17-40 or 17-35 will be much better than your 18-125.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.