How does it compare with Sigma 17-35 1.8 lens.
1937211
Sorry, I don't have the 17-35. I do have the Canon 17-40, but it is a slower lens.
1046019
The link for the comparison at cameralabs.com is not applicable because it tested the Sigma 18-200 DC prior to the release of the OS version. The OS version is much better optically than its predecessor and also includes HSM (High Speed Motor). I have read test reviews and comparisons at other sites such as popphoto that indicate the Sigma is sharper and has less distortion than the Nikon 18-200 VR, but they also state it is slightly louder. I just received my Sigma 18-200 OS today and have done limited testing, but I can tell you the AF and OS noise are not bad (the OS chirps when it turns on and off). The Sigma AF is louder than my Nikon 18-135 (w/SWM), but quieter than the AF on my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime (wo/SWM). The HSM AF seems just as fast as my Nikon lenses. The build quality feels better than the Nikon 18-135; the zoom is smooth and solid. The first things I tested today were barrel distortion and OS functionality. Barrel distortion is present at the wide end on ALL wide-range zooms, but the Sigma controls it better. The Sigma has noticeably less barrel distortion at 18mm than my Nikon. This benefit of the Sigma is moot really, because barrel distortion of both lenses can easily be corrected with software. The OS functions very well, I can shoot hand-held down to 1/10th of a second with no blur. I will post again after I have time to do more testing.
768838
I have all 3 lens and the sigma is the sharpest of them all! I've been using this lens on my black magic cinema camera and it's now my main lens! The price is well worth it and I recommend it out of the 3!
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
2024381
I don't have both for a one on one comparison of the image quality, but the 35mm f2.8 macro generally has slightly better ratings. Check out the reviews on the Pentax Forums web site. The main reason I purchased it was for the macro capability. It also has metal vs plastic housing which may or may not be an issue depending on how you use it.
843976
You are absolutely right on that Scott. The 35 1.8 is also a Chinese made lens. Same here ... that 35 1.8 was the first lens on my D90 (which is made in Thailand) and is still my go-to prime lens. I feel like this 85 mm is definitely more a portrait lens given the effective focal length on the D90. It performs superbly tho. I think the only two Japanese lenses i own are Toknia's. I don't understand why its important where a lens is made tho? Is it about the QC??
848892
Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and... » Read More Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. « Show Less
809691
In my experience, the 56mm 1.2 is every bit as sharp as the 18-55 at it's 55mm minimum aperture of f4, which is saying something. With the loss of depth of field in the crop vs. FF sesnor, I wouldn't care to own the 56mm 1.2 if I had to stop it down for sharpness and, fortunately, I do not have to. I use it frequently for wedding and commercial work and especially for the former, I am shooting wide open 80% of the time, and it is quite sharp. I find it to be the equal of my former Canon 85mm 1.2 II for sharpness wide open, while it, of course, behaves more like a 1.8 in terms of DOF.
725619
This lens compares with and outperform the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L USM, I purchased this lens after my Canon broke down, I purchased the Sigma lens and have been use it more than the Canon Lens, fantastic lens and costs half of Canon's price.
433202
I got the 40mm Micro lens over the 35mm and I am really happy with the purchase. It cost about $80 more but it does more. That being said, I have the 35mm on the wish list even though it will be horribly redundant. The 40mm Micro has so drawbacks but it does get you in close. I don't know how the 35mm could be sharper but lots of reviews comparing the two indicate it can be depending on subject matter. This is probably a topic people make themselves crazy with so I will probably buy some peace for $200 by getting the 35mm lens sooner than later.
1974652
I haven't used the 35mm but i can assure you the image quality is better than the 50 f1.8 or the kit lens. This sigma will serve you well as a starter lens and actually shouldn't be something you immediately feel like upgrading. Primes are well and good if you are ready for them but zooms are better for starting out. if you test out different focal lengths you can find out what prime lenses will work best for you. you don't want to buy a 35mm just to find out you'd rather have a 24, etc.
1829252
I have both lenses. My experience is that both provides same good image quality. Lack of OIS i do not know.. I use the 25 mm more than the 45 mm now since i can use it for portraits by moving a bit and also "normal" day to day use
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
387102
The Sigma 85mm is a damn good lens at a damn good price.Sigma also includes the hood and padded case.I use this lens for portraits, nudes,and weddings.Perfect companion to the Canon 18-200mm lens.
1703579
There is some comparison which saying Canon 18-135 lense is sharper than Sigma 18-200. My frinds please Post Canon 18-135 or Canon 18-200. ( If both are from Canon. which is best).
1917125
I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA... » Read More I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. « Show Less
760811
Hi xynobis. Both those lenses are excellent. The 17-55 likes to flare when a light source is in the frame, so a hood is a must. Other than that, they both have great AF, IS and produce equally awesome pictures. So I think it's a matter of what you'll be using it for. The 15-85 is ideally suited for sightseeing, and outdoors. It's usually bright outside, so a narrower aperture is fine and this lens is much more civilized when it comes to flare. It also has more reach, and a little more breadth. The 17-55 is much better for indoor/event and evening shooting. I love having both, but I only ever use one at a time, depending on where/what I'm shooting. If I could only have one, it would be the 15-85. I find I can never have enough focal length, and I'm willing to up my ISO a stop or two to get the shutter speed I need.