This Vs. Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM: Is the above model in any way superior to this one, with the smaller f/stop?
851241
I tried both side-by-side. F/3.5 model focused noticeably faster in low light. It also has a better build. On the other hand it is larger, heavier and uses more expensive 82mm filters (F/4-5.6 uses 77mm filters). Plus at the time I purchased it, the 4-5.6 model cost $407$ at my local store and the 3.5 model cost $649, which is $250 difference. At that price difference you might as well get excellently reviewed Tokina 11-16 constant F/2.8. Some food for thought
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.
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
725612
Hello, this is a great lens. I shoot weddings with it but outdoors or in a big church since it is 70mm. If you need group shots or wider shots you'll need a backup wide lens. But the quality of this glass is excellent. I have never used the canon version but I researched it and they both are close with the cannon having a slight edge.I decided to go with the sigma due to the price difference.
134990
Hello. I purchased tis lens and I can not be happier with it. The image quality comapred to the sigma to em is superior. LEss Chromatic Averration and way less distrotions on the edge of the frame on full frame cameras.Build is oustanding and I do used it for my paid jobs. Lokk at this link so you cna see some of the images of this magnificent and very good quality lens:http://fmta.com.mx/index.php/galerias-de-fotos/galeriasolimpiadas2014/64-olimpiadasclasificatorias2
75252
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, I ended up buying the Sigma lens and I agree with you when you say that is a great value for the price.So far I'm very happy with this lens, I have used it in both daylight and night time (with external flash) and the results have been excellent with my D5000, the OS is great and focusing is very fast indeed.Again, thank's !George
608749
I've owned both. For the obvious, the 17-70 has a more useful FL, while the 17-50 has the constant f/2.8 throughout its range. Physically, the 17-70 takes 72mm filter vs 77mm filters, the weight is lighter by 20% (470g vs 565g) and its a smaller lens which may balance on your APS-C camera better (79mm x 82mm vs 84mm x 92mm). The 17-70 will give you also a psuedo-macro capability at a 1:2.9, which is rather useful. Personally, another point to note (and I've substantiated this myself after coming across it in a few Google blurbs) is that 17mm on the 17-50 is REALLY not 17mm, but 18mm when looked at closely. May not be a deal breaker, but to some it is and the lens really is, in practice, an 18-50 lens. I found the color rendition of the two lenses to be similar (lovely, in fact) and I find the 17-70 to be sharper across the frame at 50mm than the 17-50 is, which is not surprising as that's the farthest reach of the 17-50's FL and it's expected to suffer a tad there. If you haven personally used the new Sigma Contemporary and Art series lenses, I suggest you give them a try. Excellent materials, tight tolerances, well made. I ended up keeping the 17-70f/2.8-4 C and selling the 17-50 f/2.8. I have f/1.8primes to cover the need for low light shooting should it arise, and the extra FL is more important to me
176602
Its nice to have the extra 20mm for low light applications. Cost is a factor though, depends on what you want to use it for. I think the larger unit is better for a number of different aplications
1747515
Ya the D60 actually manually focuses easier than the D40 because the D40 is just a green dot that shows up when its in focus. You might also want to check out the Sigma 30mm 1.4 HSM. That one automatically focuses on the D 40/60 models.
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.
1199011
My opinion goes against some other comments. I use a Sigma 150-500 and Sigma 70-300 (the newer version) on my D7100, shooting motorsports, where the speeds reached are quite a bit higher than kids playing football, and the focusing speed is very good, especially on the 120-300. I've never lost a shot due to slow focus, even when panning as the cars go by at 150mph+. I've used the 20-700 Sigma, and it's even a bit faster.
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
827134
Both lenses share the same drawback: There's no constant aperture throughout the zoom range. This is a bummer if you want to zoom in during lowlight situations, because the aperture gets smaller the more you zoom. That said, the Sigma lens is certainly a step up. It's aperture is wider than the kit lens, so it performs better in dim light. And I'm surprised by how much I've enjoyed the macro feature. When I shoot videos of my kids, they run right up to the camera and I can keep them in focus no matter how close they get.I've had the Sigma for about a year and it's on my camera all the time. If you can get one for a good price, I'd say go for it. Both lenses share the same drawback: There's no constant aperture throughout the zoom range. This is a bummer if you want to zoom in during lowlight situations, because the aperture gets smaller the more you zoom. That said, the Sigma lens is certainly a step up. It's aperture is wider than the kit lens, so it performs better in dim light. And I'm surprised by how much I've enjoyed the macro feature. When I shoot videos of my kids, they run right up to the camera and I can keep them in focus no matter how close they get.I've had the Sigma for about a year and it's on... » Read More Both lenses share the same drawback: There's no constant aperture throughout the zoom range. This is a bummer if you want to zoom in during lowlight situations, because the aperture gets smaller the more you zoom. That said, the Sigma lens is certainly a step up. It's aperture is wider than the kit lens, so it performs better in dim light. And I'm surprised by how much I've enjoyed the macro feature. When I shoot videos of my kids, they run right up to the camera and I can keep them in focus no matter how close they get.I've had the Sigma for about a year and it's on my camera all the time. If you can get one for a good price, I'd say go for it. « Show Less
189243
J. ONeill says: Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated. If you own a camera with micro focus adjustment like the 50D or 7D, Sigmas front or back focusing is a non-issue. Also, even if you don't own a camera with micro focus adjustment, if you get a Sigma lens that front or back focuses, you can send it to Sigma for calibration.
2133893
I bought the Canon 10-22mm because it was a little bit faster (3.5/4.5 vs 4.0/5.6) and gave me a little more range on the zoom. I tend to trust Canon glass over Sigma personally especially with the technical components. I've shot on the Sigma and the Canon and as far as picture quality goes, I give the edge to the Canon lens.
1687599
Michael - Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I just educated myself on the 10-22 mm and decided that is the lens for me! Now to save up... :)
387101
This is a matter of personal choice, and finances....the Canon lens is about twice the price of the Sigma. You gain a stop of light. I use this lens for portraits, and get spectacular results. The bokeh is beautiful. However, at 1.4, it is entirely possible to lose focus on the subject's back eye. I did use it for an event, too....and opened it all the way up....beautiful shots.