comparison sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS ? I have a rebel XTi and want to upgrade from kit lens. I am seriously torn between these two lenses. Anybody compare the 2 regarding IQ?
1298394
These are very different lenses; if you want an "upgrade" to your kit lens, the 17-85 has a similar range; while the sigma is a wide-to-tele zoom lens;In my opinion, the best "upgrade" to the kit lens is the 17-55 lens that Canon makes.
1298395
realize that the full frame camera like the 5D is in the $2000 price range, probably caters to a very serious photographer who probably wouldn't buy lenses at this price point anyway. This lens mates well with the typical market segment for the EOS 350D, 400D or 450D.
1298396
The key thing to consider are the intital costs of the lenses. Secondly then know that the sigma CANNOT be used with a full frame camera (ex. 5D, etc) while the canon CAN be used. So if you are thinking about upgrading to a full frame camera, then get the canon. But if are going to stay with APC type sensor, then the sigma is much cheaper.
387099
If you can afford the Canon. Get the Canon. It's a damn good lens. But if you're not trying to put down a lot of money and still want top notch quality, the Sigma is just that good. Sigma's on that level, but the Canon is hard to beat. My option was the Sony Carl Zeiss 85mm. My advice, see if you can test them both out and go from there.
2103072
I have both. Since getting the Sigma, the nikon is never on my camera. The Sigma is much better and very flexible in my opinion. However, you should get the USB dock for the sigma, so you can update the lens firmware. Not every camera needs it, but in many people's experience it makes all the difference. You probably won't need to do more than just update the latest lens firmware. I love the new sigma ART lenses. Killer sharp, great color rendition. Very nice bokeh. Reasonable price.
1813611
The Canon "18-135" IS STM is a OK to Good lens for Video because of the STM. But for Stills it is just OK. There's not a perfect lens out there. I don't buy kit lenses, cause for a little more $$ you get better lenses. BUT, you have to ask yourself, will you change lenses back and forth ? From long zooms/telephoto primes and back to short/medium zooms or primes ? OR, do you like leaving one lens on, or you just don't have a bunch of lenses to switch back & forth. The Sigma starts at 17mm the Canon at 18mm both have barrel distortion, but from 24mm to 70mm, yes the Sigma is better than the Canon, but the Canon has a longer reach to 135mm. DXO Labs has this new Sigma 17-70 Contemporary lens at almost the same numbers/performance as the $1100 Canon 17-55 f/2.8 ! That's how good this lens is. BUT, how well they do on Video Dslr cameras, I don't know ? Hope this helps.
1192969
Initially, I was also thinking of purchasing XSi earlier but now zeroed in on T1i (or 50D - wallet permitting) because (1) higher Effective Pixels in T1i / 50D - 15.1 M as against 12.2 M. ( I agree not a big factor for casual / normal photography) (2) HD Video in T1i (though one of my last considerations , but still it's a cool feature to have - managing a DSLR & Camcorder during an event / ceremony is difficult for me ) (3) DIGIC 4 Image Processing engine in T1i / 50D is better than Digic III in XSi (4) Lower ISO Rating / range in case of XSi (100-1600) as compared to T1i / 50D (100-3200 expandable to 6400,12800) meaning better performance in low light for T1i / 50D. (5) Number of LCD dots (in the LCD screen) is much higher in T1i / 50D (920,000) as against XSi (230,000) meaning better LCD visibility in bright sunlight. (6) Last but not the least , XSi was launched in January'08 as against March'09 for T1i - so you have already lost ~1.5 years out of 5 year life!! However , in case of Pixel density and price XSi scores over T1i/50D. Btw, cost difference is not much for T1i with and without the kit lens - better go for T1i kit. Canon 28-135mm zoom lens is ok but I like Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical IF Macro Zoom Lens. Hope this will be helpful for you.
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
987142
I owned the 50D and now own a 7D. I have had my 17-55 f/1.8 IS for over 2 years. I bought the 24-105 a year ago to replace my 17-55 hahaha yea let me say right now I am not selling my 17-55 and when shooting indoors the 17-55 f/2.8 is will be my first choice over the 24-105 f/4 IS. Indoors f/4 is slow period. I ended up buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to shoot indoors for low light and I LOVE it. Anyways on a crop body I would pick the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS for indoors unless its a really well lit room or I am using my 580 EXII. I am leaning to primes anymore and would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 for you. Another option is Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8 and you spend less then either of those lenses heck you can throw in a 50 f/1.8 and have 3 lenses for the price of 1 if you don't mind switching lenses. Nick
2174721
I have a 20D. The answer is, it depends on what you want to do. The EF 24-70 and the 70-200 both have the "red stripe" and are top-of-the-line, awesome lenses. They rely on big optics with the 77mm objective lens to produce their images. They are great at all times, especiallhy in low light. They are also very heavy and quite expensive. Get them if you are going for absolute, uncompromising photos. Get a tripod or monopod, too, unless you do arm curls in your spare time! If you want excellent photos with less weight and expense, I recommend you get the EF 17-85 IS as your base lens for light weight and convenience. (If you get the "base" 18-55, you will find you quit using it the day you get a newer lens. We have a Digital Rebel that came with that lens, and we never use it. Never. Did I say "Never?" Buy a body or a kit with the 17-85 unless you are going the 24-70 route. The 18-55 only adds about $50 to the camera price, which isn't much compared to the price of the camera bodies, but why waste $50?) For telephoto zoom, the 70-300 IS is an excellent lens, about the same weight and size as the 24-70 but of course much more versatile. Then you will need a wide-angle, and again you have two ways you can go. I have a 10-22 lens that was less costly than Canon's red-stripe wide angles, and I am well-pleased. You get some parallax below a focal length of 12-14, but it's kind of a neat effect if you like it. I hope this helps.
1183540
I've never used the canon 85mm but the there is almost no difference in sharpness with th Sigma lens. The price difference is only justified by the lower F stop.
41291
I own both. In terms of sharpness and optical quality, they are about the same. As already mentioned, the difference in focal lengths is significant. The 12/2.0 is more useful for landscapes and shooting in confined spaces. The 17/1.8 is better for street photography and portraiture.
1192318
I am extremely pleased with my 18-140. I do not own the 18-200, but I have handled it. The 18-140 is a bit lighter, and handles a bit quicker. It is sharper than my 18-105, especially at the wider focal lengths, where most pictures are taken.
1742136
If you want sharper images and faster focusing, you might instead consider getting one of the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM models. The difference in image quality can be quite a startling. Back (WAY back) when I was looking to upgrade my old telephoto lens, someone gave me excellent advice that the difference between the newer telephotos I was considering was relatively small - too small to agonize over - and that if I really wanted to upgrade, I should just bite the bullet and get the L. One of the best pieces of advice on equipment I ever got. Once I tried the L, I never looked back. The one drawback is that the lens will spoil you forever.
604837
Hi Jack - to be honest I've not had hands on with this lens. It was bought for my Son for his birthday. And from what I do know about it it is smaller and with the Macro capability - a more useful lens, also the 18-200 has less focal range then the newer Macro Lens. Seems to have pretty good reviews and as my son uses it for digital video - he's pretty happy thus far. Sorry I can't be of more help.Chuck
582403
Before I bought my 18-200, I was often disappointed that I'd miss that great shot because I had the exact wrong lens on my camera (If I had the 18-55, I'd inevitably see something moving in the distance that I'd wanted to shoot,etc..). By the time I'd switched, the opportunity was often gone. The 18-200 meant less missed shots.
2103068
Its really a budget decision. Both produce sharp images and good in low light, but with the sigma your packing more focal range without having to swap lenses.
943019
I have used the 17-55 canon and own the Sigma 17-50, use it all the time, very sharp! You will love it, it is my walk around lens.
1352096
I have the Rebel XTI and I've taken some great close up pictures with the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. I also have the 70-200mm f/4, 17-55mm f2.8, 85mm f1.8 and the 17-40 f/4, but my favorite is the 100mm macro with the 70-200mm f/4 a very close second.