Opinions of the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens

[robert_thommes1]

I'm seriously considering this lens for use with my XT, and would like your opinions of this specific lens. What are

it's pros and cons in your experience? Please...restrict comments to this lens only. Thanks

[robert_thommes1]

I am not interested in the newer "macro" version.

[mrossi]

I have it and use it on my 30D. Excellent lens, very useful. It's capable of some very wide coverage, which as with any other wide-angle used to be aligned properly to avoid distortion at the edges. Nicely constructed, a little on the heavy side but no biggie, it's small. Completely happy with it, it covers my wide angle needs on a crop sensor very nicely.

[terry_henry]

I have this lens and used it for a couple of years. Image quality was good and build quality felt very good.

However, the lens developed a focus error (wouldn't lock focus at infinity) so I've replaced it with the EF

17-55mm F2.8 IS. That lens is a fair bit sharper, but MUCH bigger.

 

Pros:

Sharp, usable wide-open, nice feeling build quality, compact.

 

Cons:

No HSM focus, focus lock not always consistent, no IS, slightly warm colour, although that's easy to correct in

post processing, Sigma reliability not good in my experience.

 

Both Sigmas I've owned have been 'posh' EX models and both have broken early in their lives. I'm pretty careful

with my stuff and though it may be bad luck, I'll probably stick to Canon from now on.

 

The Tamron looks the better bet of the non-Canon F2.8 'normal' zooms.

 

Cheers

[chrisjb]

I did not like the sigma 18 50 in low light, was hard to get focus but the lens is sharp and ok normally, I use Tamron 17 50 2.8 now which is excellent value, did not buy canon 17 55 as don`t use IS :)

[jimstrutz]

I also had a lot of focus errors with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. They happened far too often so I upgraded to the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 which is a better lens in every regard but size and price.

[richard_martin10]

Ditto on the focus problems, plus a bit of purple fringing noticable here and there. I went with the Tamron 17-50 after I dumped the Sigma and have been very happy with it. I liked the Canon but price and no need for IS at these focal lengths made my decision easy.

[tscheung]

Hello all,

how good the canon 17-55 f2.8?

I am planning to buy this or Tamron.

[robert_thommes1]

So we seem to have a mixed bag here; as is often the case. A lens with good IQ, but a bit unreliable in the AF department. That being the case, maybe I need to broaden my search a bit for a reasonably priced W/A zoom. Thank you all for taking the time to comment. Bob

[kari v]

Try the Tamron equivalent. It's pretty much equal in IQ department but gets better user reviews more often.

 

The Sigma I'm using at the moment has worked nicely and purple fringing hasn't been a problem, it's not a Tokina lens. ;). It's the never macro-version (1:3 is actually very nice to have for casual close up), why are you interested in the older model? It's not even available new?

[jimstrutz]

Tak Shun Cheung: The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS is what the Sigma should be. It is sharp and contrasty, and has excellent focus. It also has full time manual focus and Image Stabilization.

 

It has four detractions: 1) It is expensive. 2) It has a tendency to attract dust behind the first element. This can be cleaned by a competent user, and instructions are on the web. 3) It does exhibit some flare in contra light. 4) Built quality is decent but not as good as a $1000 lens should be.