Real experiencie comparing with Canon 17-55 2.8? Reviews said that it almost as good except in the edges wide open at 2.8.
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.
537960
I personally have the 850sw and purchased it because a friend had it and loved it. I think that an extra 2 megapixels is overkill and merely ads to the noise at higher ISO settings. As long as you follow the scene modes you will get very good shots. 8 megapixels is plenty enough for the crop factor to enlarge so an extra 2x is a mute issue with me.
1939651
For one thing you don't have the full range as the 28/300... Which is an all around lens. I would say the 70/200 being 2.8 captures great shots that you are planning for in that range, Unlike the other where the shots might be wide angle to zoom changing frequently.
1370588
Exactly. It should be noted that it's sharp and CA-free at 1.2 as well. If Canon or Nikon made a 1.8 this good, I'd be stoked.
1324618
Yeah, I'd say their elements are in the same class. Both use ultra-low dispersion glass and produce superb images. I think the main difference is that the 17-55 has to use larger elements. Which increases the relative aperture and the price tag.
579923
I love that lens it's more comparable to a Ziess 85mm. The bokeh at 1.5 is awesome! I would highly recommend it over the canon 1.8
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.
608744
I think the 17-50 is 2.8 fixed with 17-70 its 2.8-4 depending on distance. I shoot weddings primarily and love the 17-70 because I get great macro shots of the ring, closeups of bouquets etc, but at the same time I can get great group shots and being between 2.8-4 I just raise ISO when Im closer to 4. But if you prefer consistent aperture and don't care for macro the 17-50 is great too.
935597
It's very close in quality to its 1.4 counterpart. The L version has a very slight edge in contrast and sharpness. I opted for the 35mm f2 IS because the difference wasn't large enough for me to justify spending twice as much for the 1.4.Hope this helps!
874720
There's no comparison. The 16mm with converter is as good a substitute as you will find, but cannot hold a candle to the Rokinon. The latter is better corrected across the frame, better designed (Samyang patent), and very, very sharp. But the 16mm gives you the equivalent of a 24mm on a 35mm format - which may be a more useful combination for some shooters. I have a 16-50 PZ that covers 16mm acceptably.
678606
Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just... » Read More Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. « Show Less
1357471
my old work has the 28-70 2.8... personally I took it out of my bag n use the old 35-70 2.8... that is much sharper then the 28-70 <-- might be the worst 2.8 ever... but they got it right with 24-70 sharp n wide... oh n weight less then the 28-70...
1588427
Hi, Jason. You tend to see some degradation in image quality as well as some vignetting with the 2X teleconverters. While the canon is better than say a Sigma or a Tamron it will still affect image quality some. Using the 1.4X, at 200mm with the 70-200L, I have seen some very minor loss in sharpness in the corners, however I have to pixel peep to see that.
1617974
Wow I never have Spoken to an actual goddess before. So I better get this right:)To be very honest I'm not sure of everything. But I know it has higher resolutions and more points of aim. The high speed shutter rate is faster. Reading some of the other reviews people have said that the motion tracking is much better on this one. But I've never used the 65.Hope it helps.
848891
Sure thing (I was somehwat surprised to see this thread started from 2008 again). The 17-55 is a real treat in low light, I think you'll love it!
1191177
No, I'm not aware of any updates to the seals on the 17-55. Yes, an f2.8 lens needs only half as much light as an f4. That means you can use a 2 times faster shutter speed or a stop slower, less noisy, ISO. Plus the f2.8 will give you more background blurring which is very nice for portraits where you want to isolate the subject from the background. I did a quick review of lens dust threads on the PhotographyOnTheNet Canon forums and found dust threads for pretty much every Canon lens that extends when zoomed as well as a few other third-party lenses that aren't considered inexpensive. Interestingly, none of these threads actually mentioned finding a degradation in image quality which lead to the discovery of internal dust but, rather, were started by someone who inevitably looked through the lens with a flashlight, saw some dust and grew concerned. I'm of the philosophy that if it ain't broke, don't go looking for problems. ;) (When I last bought my brand new car, I made a very conscious - though difficult - effort not to look for scratches in the paint after every trip to the grocery store.) The general consensus is that SOME amount of dust in the lens will not affect image quality whatsoever. Many owners of the 17-55 also report that installing a front UV filter has kept their lens pristine (I've also kept my UV filter on at all times except when using a CPL filter so perhaps that isn't an unreasonable conclusion). Apparently there are three small hidden vents on the front of the lens a filter will seal. Furthermore, one of the long time members of the forum has published do-it-yourself instructions for internally cleaning the lens and others point out that Canon will give you a free (minus postage) cleaning and adjustment while the lens is still in warranty. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it really isn't something worth worrying too much about under typical conditions.
1837116
No, the 2.8 means this is a fast lens & can be used in lower light situations than say a 5.6 lens. Use the aperture setting on your camera & you can set the aperture to 5.6 or 6.3, etc. for landscapes or 2.8 or 3.2 for portraits where you want a shallow depth of field.