5DmkIII

fvdbergh said:
Assuming you are referring to the Nikon 17-55, I can definitely recommend the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Half the price of the Nikon, and comes with VR. The VR means it makes a fairly decent video lens too. Not sure if the Canon has IS, but the sigma is still cheaper, and practically just as good.
Click to expand...
He is referring to the canon 17-55 f/2.8 EF-s. No use on a 5d though.
 
fvdbergh said:
Assuming you are referring to the Nikon 17-55, I can definitely recommend the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Half the price of the Nikon, and comes with VR. The VR means it makes a fairly decent video lens too. Not sure if the Canon has IS, but the sigma is still cheaper, and practically just as good.
Click to expand...

Except at f/2.8, where one could argue it matters most. I've shot with the new Sigma on Canon, and a Nikonian friend bought the Nikon version. It's a great lens for the money, but it simply doesn't rival the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.
 
I've heard the Tamron 17-50 is better than the Sigma. It's on my wishlist, but so is an upgrade to FF, I'm a confused individual.
 
koffiejunkie said:
Except at f/2.8, where one could argue it matters most. I've shot with the new Sigma on Canon, and a Nikonian friend bought the Nikon version. It's a great lens for the money, but it simply doesn't rival the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.
Click to expand...

Is this perhaps due to sample variation? A few of the review sites (DxO, LensTip, Bob Atkins, to name a few that I verified) found that the Sigma is comparable to the Canon in terms of sharpness at f/2.8, even in the corners.

But of course, sharpness isn't everything, so things like full-time manual focus override also have to be taken into account.

Anyhow, the OP just said that he is strapped for cash, so I though I'd recommend the cheaper alternative.
 
I lost sight of the OP's budget restrictions. But it's still fun to argue about gear :)

fvdbergh said:
Is this perhaps due to sample variation? A few of the review sites (DxO, LensTip, Bob Atkins, to name a few that I verified) found that the Sigma is comparable to the Canon in terms of sharpness at f/2.8, even in the corners.
Click to expand...

Could be if they're having centring issues, I suppose. I've seen three though, and they all performed similarly. That said, I'm the one who always points out that border/corner sharpness doesn't matter at f/2.8 if you're after shallow DOF. But there are definitely situations where it does matter.

fvdbergh said:
But of course, sharpness isn't everything, so things like full-time manual focus override also have to be taken into account.
Click to expand...

The Sigma has HSM. Are you saying it doesn't have FTM?
 
koffiejunkie said:
I lost sight of the OP's budget restrictions. But it's still fun to argue about gear :)

The Sigma has HSM. Are you saying it doesn't have FTM?
Click to expand...

Nope, it does not have FTM. Nobody knows why, since they have it on some of their other ( cheaper! ) lenses. It boggles the mind how they can build superb optics for an enthusiast lens and neglect the FTM.

My copy is Nikon mount, though, but I doubt that the Canon mount would have FTM. Btw, I use it at f/2.8 almost exclusively, and I have never had reason to complain. But I mostly shot people and test charts :)

Anyhow, I am OT, so I'll leave it at that.
 
fvdbergh said:
My copy is Nikon mount, though, but I doubt that the Canon mount would have FTM. Btw, I use it at f/2.8 almost exclusively, and I have never had reason to complain. But I mostly shot people and test charts :)
Click to expand...

Checked with my Nikonian friend and it turns out I was wrong (about the border/corner sharpness) - I confused it with the older 18-50mm f/2.8.
 
This looks like one serious piece of hardware! The bonus for my industry is the HD filming that you can do with it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X