# Canon 17-55 2.8, or Sigma 17-50 2.8?



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

Just wondering if anyone has any experience with these two lenses?

They're both supposed to be superb, and I'm not sure what to do. I've two options:

a) Buy the Sigma new for about £475
b) Buy the Canon used for about £500

Any help would be much appreciated.


----------



## Buck (Jan 16, 2008)

I have the Canon 17-55 2.8 and can say it is superb. I also bought mine used (but mint) and it is my walkabout lens - it stays on the camera 95% of the time. I only change it for the 10-22 when I need wide or go for my 55-250 when I need distance.

They say that the 17-55 is "L" lens quality but as Canon don't/won't have any EF-S fitting lenses classed as "L" it will never get the famous red band!

I can't comment on the Sigma but they do have a good reputation although can be inconsistant in quality i.e their 10-20 which I had and swapped out for the Canon 10-22 as it was soft focus.


----------



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

All things being equal, you can't go wrong with the Canon. I know that.

It's whether or not I'd be better off with the Sigma and with its warranty, or the Canon with a little risk.

Oooo... decisions!


----------



## Buck (Jan 16, 2008)

I suppose it also depends on where you are getting the 2nd hand canon lens from and whether you can try before you buy or do you know the buyer/their reputation?

'Tis a tough one - keep us all updated.


----------



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

Buck. said:


> I suppose it also depends on where you are getting the 2nd hand canon lens from and whether you can try before you buy or do you know the buyer/their reputation?
> 
> 'Tis a tough one - keep us all updated.


I don't know him personally. Made the contact via Gumtree, so I'll have it in hand before I give the cash.

He said he bought it as a used 'MINT' from http://www.peterwalnes.com/ a year ago, which I thought was pretty transparent of him.

The positive thing is that unless it dies on me, I'll not lose anything on buying the Canon.

He's actually looking £530, which means there's a £60 difference.


----------



## Buck (Jan 16, 2008)

I know it's obvious but take your camera and fire off a few shots. 

Check the zoom and focus ring are smooth but not slack. 

Pixel peep at a few shots to make sure it's sharp at different aperture settings too.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

^check also different zoom levels of sharpness.

Bret


----------



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

Will do guys.


----------



## koi (Jun 30, 2007)

I have the Canon, great lens only issue I have is that with all that glass in it it is a bit heavy


----------



## Mr Mike (Oct 2, 2007)

Any reason you havent considered the Tamron 17-50 f2.8? Its a very highly regarded lens, if you do take a look its the NON VC original version you should go after, i love mine and struggle to tell PQ from my 50mm prime at the same f-stop.

Defo worth looking at and its cheaper :thumb:


----------



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

Mr Mike said:


> Any reason you havent considered the Tamron 17-50 f2.8? Its a very highly regarded lens, if you do take a look its the NON VC original version you should go after, i love mine and struggle to tell PQ from my 50mm prime at the same f-stop.
> 
> Defo worth looking at and its cheaper :thumb:


Yeah, Mike. The reason is because of what I'm shooting... my daughter. I don't argue that the IQ is very good on the Tamron. The same goes for the Sigma.

The problem comes down to fast and accurate AF. It needs to be quick to get good shots of children. If it was landscapes, it would be a different story and I could save a lot of money.

In the Sigma's favour (compared to the Tamron), it has HSM. I'm just wondering if it can closely match the Canon sufficiently to make it worth going for.


----------



## Mr Mike (Oct 2, 2007)

tomah said:


> Yeah, Mike. The reason is because of what I'm shooting... my daughter. I don't argue that the IQ is very good on the Tamron. The same goes for the Sigma.
> 
> The problem comes down to fast and accurate AF. It needs to be quick to get good shots of children. If it was landscapes, it would be a different story and I could save a lot of money.
> 
> In the Sigma's favour (compared to the Tamron), it has HSM. I'm just wondering if it can closely match the Canon sufficiently to make it worth going for.


Interesting that you think the Tarmon is not fast enought to photograph children? I have not had any af speed issues with this lens EVER! If the light is too low then it may hunt a little or use AF assist light to help but then no lens would focus is light that low inlcuding my nikon 85mm f1.8 and my 50mm f1.8

I have shot moving dogs, birds and even MTB coming down a hill rather quickly and its has never struggled to hit focus.

At the end of the day it is your choice and your money, best of luck with your decision but i thought would make you aware of my experience.

Mike


----------



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

Mr Mike said:


> Interesting that you think the Tarmon is not fast enought to photograph children? I have not had any af speed issues with this lens EVER! If the light is too low then it may hunt a little or use AF assist light to help but then no lens would focus is light that low inlcuding my nikon 85mm f1.8 and my 50mm f1.8
> 
> I have shot moving dogs, birds and even MTB coming down a hill rather quickly and its has never struggled to hit focus.
> 
> ...


Canon - 



Tamron - 




That's not counting accuracy, which one assumes would be in the Canon's favour.


----------



## Mr Mike (Oct 2, 2007)

tomah said:


> Canon - Canon EF-S 17-55 AF Sound - YouTube
> Tamron - Tamron 17-50mm ( IF) AF Speed - YouTube
> 
> That's not counting accuracy, which one assumes would be in the Canon's favour.


Well thats a shock to me i must admit :doublesho mine is more like this....






Must be body differences or bad example of the lens?

Going by your 2 vids i can see why you would not consider the Tamron


----------



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

It seems a bit hit and miss, going by this:


----------



## Mr Mike (Oct 2, 2007)

tomah said:


> It seems a bit hit and miss, going by this: Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 vs Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS vs Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS on Canon T2i 550D - YouTube


Looks like i have been very lucky then, i did read similar stories prior to my purchase but i read more good about it than bad, i walked from a sigma at that time due to hearing more bad than good.

Swings and roundabouts and pot luck seesm to be the way with lens purchase


----------



## Rich @ PB (Oct 26, 2005)

I have the Canon 17-55 f2.8, and I really love it. It's fantastic in low light conditions, and the auto focus is very quick. As a general walk about lens it's great, and due to the quality of the glass it's also great for more challenging work such as nightime astro shots. Worth every penny IMHO.


----------



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

I came across this. 5 lenses compared:


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

rright, and it's not stacked against tamron in any way?

I've not seen major problems with *any* lens in the right conditions. I despised the 7D first time out in low light with the 17-55 on the front - it refused to lock. On anything. Now, I had a K10D at the time and that would hunt mildly but never refuse; the 50mm would get very confused about some things but even in low light on the street it will lock after (at the latest) one cycle.

The video is also not fair for one reason: USM or lack of it. Siggy has HSM, Tamron has nothing of the sort.

AF speed alone is not really important unless you're doing motorsport IMO and even then, it's more than possible to pre-focus and use AF-S with panning / tracking to get something decent. Focus speed isn't everything. Focus accuracy is.

Bret


----------



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

bretti_kivi said:


> rright, and it's not stacked against tamron in any way?
> 
> I've not seen major problems with *any* lens in the right conditions. I despised the 7D first time out in low light with the 17-55 on the front - it refused to lock. On anything. Now, I had a K10D at the time and that would hunt mildly but never refuse; the 50mm would get very confused about some things but even in low light on the street it will lock after (at the latest) one cycle.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what the intention of the video was. I just thought it was a guy with 5 lenses comparing them all.

I just thought it was interesting to see how varied lenses can be, and the difference Canon's USM makes.

I also agree with your last paragraph. I'm shooting children. They're one of the most difficult because they're fast and erratic. It's much easier to focus on the side of a moving car, than it is to get the focus on the eye of a moving child


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

I'll say it out loud now: I think you're attempting something that is remarkably close to impossible. Like bats. I'll agree the 7D can be fast on AF, but in anything less than extremely bright light I don't think it's going to happen at all and even then... 

I do not attempt this kind of thing. At least not under f/14 at christmas with big strobes facing the ceiling and at least some effort at pre-focus.

Bret


----------

