Been kicking around the idea of getting the Canon used or buy a new Sigma and still have jingle in my pocket. Not much found here on FM on the Sigma but over in POTN there seems an overwhelming opinion the Sigma is the way to go. Am wondering what people think here? I do believe over in the other forum a huge group of Sigma fans I feel the love
I got mine referbished from Canon. I like it, but it is a large lens especially with shade on and I wouldn't mind if it was a bit sharper-always the case though wanting more. Focus is fast and accurate. I did have the Tamron 17-55 earlier and it was also a nice lens-much smaller and actually wider if I remember correctly, but focus was not quick and was noisy.
And I'm the guy to help tanglefoot47 finance his next purchase : )
I have the 17-55 and it is very sharp and fast. I find it to be a bit large and somewhat heavy for hiking, although I have done a lot with it. It was also vulnerable to sandstorms, requiring a trip to Canon Service after hiking Escalante, UT. It also suffers from lens creep.
I bought a used Tamron 17-50 from another FM member, but the darn thing is soft and no amount of MA will fix it. I ran all my lenses through Focal and the Tamron wouldn't even calibrate. Maybe I got a dud.
I'm going to give the 15-85 a try for a upcoming ski trip, because it's an inch shorter and 7 oz. lighter than the 17-55. Normally I'm not shaving ounces this hard, but the trip demands it.
danb121 wrote:
I had this dilema a few years back and ended up going for the tamron 17-50 (non vc, it's sharper), it was a fine choice.
This is what I did. Got one for around $300, and spent the rest of my "Canon 17-55 2.8 budget" on a Canon 15-85. I figured this way I didn't have to have the debate of whether I wanted the extended zooming range vs. the faster glass, I felt like I got both for about the same price as a Canon 17-55 2.8.
gocolts wrote:
This is what I did. Got one for around $300, and spent the rest of my "Canon 17-55 2.8 budget" on a Canon 15-85. I figured this way I didn't have to have the debate of whether I wanted the extended zooming range vs. the faster glass, I felt like I got both for about the same price as a Canon 17-55 2.8.
Seems like an awful lot of duplication for little gain, but horses for courses. I probably would have gotten a 70-200f4 or 85 1.8 for the money you spent on a 15-85
) the canon EFs any day of the week