Archive 2005 · Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
p.1 #1Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
I recently purchased a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC to replace my 18-55 kit lens. I chose the Sigma because of the great reviews I read on FM and elsewhere and the excellent price (when compared to the 16-35L).
So to really test the performance of the Sigma, I took it to downtown Worcester, MA, along with 3 other lenses - the Canon 18-55 "kit", a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, and (at the long end) a Canon 50 f1.8. You can see my results here: http://rain.prohosting.com/jwexler/lens_comparisons.htm
So far it looks like the Sigma stands up quite well to my sharp and contrasty Tamron, and surprisingly) even beats my sharp "secret weapon" Canon 50 at some apertures. As expected, it handily beat the Canon "kit" lens (anyone want to buy it
). The Sigma had a little vignietting (sp?) at 18mm and f2.8, but it decreased at f4 and was gone by f5.6. I think the SIgma offers a great price/performance package for an APS DSLR.
PS - If anyone in MA has a Canon 16-35 f2.8L, and/or a 24-70 f2.8L and wouldn't mind a day trip to beautiful downtown Worcester
I'd love to add shots from them to my comparison...
Edited by jamiewexler on Mar 20, 2005 at 12:15 PM GMT
So to really test the performance of the Sigma, I took it to downtown Worcester, MA, along with 3 other lenses - the Canon 18-55 "kit", a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, and (at the long end) a Canon 50 f1.8. You can see my results here: http://rain.prohosting.com/jwexler/lens_comparisons.htm
So far it looks like the Sigma stands up quite well to my sharp and contrasty Tamron, and surprisingly) even beats my sharp "secret weapon" Canon 50 at some apertures. As expected, it handily beat the Canon "kit" lens (anyone want to buy it
). The Sigma had a little vignietting (sp?) at 18mm and f2.8, but it decreased at f4 and was gone by f5.6. I think the SIgma offers a great price/performance package for an APS DSLR.PS - If anyone in MA has a Canon 16-35 f2.8L, and/or a 24-70 f2.8L and wouldn't mind a day trip to beautiful downtown Worcester
I'd love to add shots from them to my comparison... Edited by jamiewexler on Mar 20, 2005 at 12:15 PM GMT
Mar 20, 2005 at 06:09 AM
p.1 #2Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
I have been looking at replacing my 24-85 with this one for a while, but somehow I have never been able to committ to the change...
still thinking every now and then on the 17-40..
good thing I dont have the money for any of both right now
still thinking every now and then on the 17-40..
good thing I dont have the money for any of both right now
Mar 20, 2005 at 06:50 AM
p.1 #3Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
How about edge sharpness?
Mar 20, 2005 at 08:36 AM
p.1 #4Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
gyrodave wrote:
How about edge sharpness?
At 18mm, the Sigma was pretty soft wide open in the extreme corners, but got increasingly better as I stopped it down. At 28 and 50mm, sharpness was pretty consistent across the frame.
How about edge sharpness?
At 18mm, the Sigma was pretty soft wide open in the extreme corners, but got increasingly better as I stopped it down. At 28 and 50mm, sharpness was pretty consistent across the frame.
Mar 20, 2005 at 09:16 AM
fStopJojo
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #5Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
The Sigma actually fares very well at the edges. See this test with 2 of my primes:
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/zoomvprimes
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/zoomvprimes
Mar 20, 2005 at 10:13 AM
p.1 #6Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
Is it me or is the Tamron kicking some butt in those examples? Another thing is that I have been reading a lot of reviews recently and it seems as though (could be my monitor cal) many Sigma lenses have a yellow cast to them. By the way I love to see side by side tests. Thanks for sharing.
Mar 20, 2005 at 11:24 AM
p.1 #7Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
Thanks.
This Sigma has long been on my wish list. I'm pushing it up, now!
This Sigma has long been on my wish list. I'm pushing it up, now!
Mar 20, 2005 at 12:14 PM
p.1 #8Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
Is the 18-50 plastic or metal? If it is plastic, how rugged does it feel? Are all the EX lenses metal or only certain ones? Thanks!
Mar 20, 2005 at 12:48 PM
p.1 #9Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
drifter136 wrote:
Is the 18-50 plastic or metal? If it is plastic, how rugged does it feel? Are all the EX lenses metal or only certain ones? Thanks!
I believe it's metal - the thing is built like a tank! I was pleasantly surprised by the heft the first time i took it out of the box. The flat EX finish is nice too.
Is the 18-50 plastic or metal? If it is plastic, how rugged does it feel? Are all the EX lenses metal or only certain ones? Thanks!
I believe it's metal - the thing is built like a tank! I was pleasantly surprised by the heft the first time i took it out of the box. The flat EX finish is nice too.
Mar 20, 2005 at 01:12 PM
p.1 #10Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
mikal_nikolas wrote:
Is it me or is the Tamron kicking some butt in those examples? Another thing is that I have been reading a lot of reviews recently and it seems as though (could be my monitor cal) many Sigma lenses have a yellow cast to them. By the way I love to see side by side tests. Thanks for sharing.
The Tamron belongs with the Canon 50 1.8 Mark II as one of the most underpriced lenses out there. If I could only have one lens, this would be the one I kept.
Is it me or is the Tamron kicking some butt in those examples? Another thing is that I have been reading a lot of reviews recently and it seems as though (could be my monitor cal) many Sigma lenses have a yellow cast to them. By the way I love to see side by side tests. Thanks for sharing.
The Tamron belongs with the Canon 50 1.8 Mark II as one of the most underpriced lenses out there. If I could only have one lens, this would be the one I kept.
Mar 20, 2005 at 01:15 PM
p.1 #11Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
Have you had a chance to test it against flare? I take a lot of sunset pics, so I'm looking for a new lens that handles flare very well.
I usually use PBase to check out samples. I was looking into the Tokina 28-70 2.8 ATX-Pro SV for it's price, but almost all the sunset pics showed bad flare. If this lens handles it well, it may be my next lens...plus the 18mm would be really nice.
I usually use PBase to check out samples. I was looking into the Tokina 28-70 2.8 ATX-Pro SV for it's price, but almost all the sunset pics showed bad flare. If this lens handles it well, it may be my next lens...plus the 18mm would be really nice.
Mar 20, 2005 at 01:26 PM
p.1 #12Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
I did get some flare in extreme circumstances, but it doesn't seem ot be any worse than any other lens I've used - and better than some! http://www.fphoto.org/jamiewexler//flare1
Mar 20, 2005 at 05:46 PM
p.1 #13Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
I'm really excited about the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 as I've been thinking of replacing my lens kit (Canon EF-S 18-55). I suppose I could dish out the extra cash for the Canon 17-40 L but my wife would probably have my hide.
One of my reservations is the fact that the Sigma is an EX lens and thus won't be compatible with full frame digital bodies of the future. I've been trying to purchase lenses that will last a long time but this may have a limited life span.
Any comments? Do you think the Sigma is significantly better than the canon kit lens to justify the expense?
Regards.
One of my reservations is the fact that the Sigma is an EX lens and thus won't be compatible with full frame digital bodies of the future. I've been trying to purchase lenses that will last a long time but this may have a limited life span.
Any comments? Do you think the Sigma is significantly better than the canon kit lens to justify the expense?
Regards.
Mar 21, 2005 at 12:58 AM
p.1 #14Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
mikal_nikolas wrote:
Is it me or is the Tamron kicking some butt in those examples? Another thing is that I have been reading a lot of reviews recently and it seems as though (could be my monitor cal) many Sigma lenses have a yellow cast to them. By the way I love to see side by side tests. Thanks for sharing.
The canon's have a blue cast to them...
Also, EX in the Sigma line just means "Good", "DC" is the crop factor designator:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/popup.asp
BTW, thanks to the original poster for the comparision shots.
Is it me or is the Tamron kicking some butt in those examples? Another thing is that I have been reading a lot of reviews recently and it seems as though (could be my monitor cal) many Sigma lenses have a yellow cast to them. By the way I love to see side by side tests. Thanks for sharing.
The canon's have a blue cast to them...
Also, EX in the Sigma line just means "Good", "DC" is the crop factor designator:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/popup.asp
BTW, thanks to the original poster for the comparision shots.
Mar 21, 2005 at 01:41 AM
p.1 #15Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
im still unsure whether to replace the 24-85 for a 18-50... or to replace the 15mm fisheye by the 12-24 mm tokina..
decisions decisions..
comments appreciated
decisions decisions..
comments appreciated
Mar 21, 2005 at 04:41 AM
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #16Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
The canon is better hands down...........with a little PS!
Mar 21, 2005 at 04:43 AM
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #17Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
Do ypu think customers will be able to tell in an 8 by 10?
Mar 21, 2005 at 04:44 AM
p.1 #18Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
vesalius01 wrote:
I'm really excited about the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 as I've been thinking of replacing my lens kit (Canon EF-S 18-55). I suppose I could dish out the extra cash for the Canon 17-40 L but my wife would probably have my hide.
One of my reservations is the fact that the Sigma is an EX lens and thus won't be compatible with full frame digital bodies of the future. I've been trying to purchase lenses that will last a long time but this may have a limited life span.
Any comments? Do you think the Sigma is significantly better than the...Show more →
I thought about the 17-40 as well, but for my fledgeling wedding photography business I wanted the extra stop of light. That got me looking at the Canon 16-35 f2.8L, but since I am making sure that the business I book this year completely pays for the equipment I buy, the $1200. price tag threw me. So I decided to go with the Sigma this year and the Canon "L" next.
As for the limited life span, I am OK with using it for as long as I have a 1.6cf body. I'm extremely happy with the output of the 20D, and will definitely be upgrading my glass before I upgrade the body.
As for the Sigma being better...I think the pictures speak for themselves. I'd like to try a 16-35L for comparison, but the shots show that the Tamron and the Sigma are both significantly sharper and more contrasty right out of the camera. Yeah, you can make the canon match up in PS, but with 4 weddings a month w/1200 pictures each, the point is to get my PS to a minimum!
I'm really excited about the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 as I've been thinking of replacing my lens kit (Canon EF-S 18-55). I suppose I could dish out the extra cash for the Canon 17-40 L but my wife would probably have my hide.
One of my reservations is the fact that the Sigma is an EX lens and thus won't be compatible with full frame digital bodies of the future. I've been trying to purchase lenses that will last a long time but this may have a limited life span.
Any comments? Do you think the Sigma is significantly better than the...Show more →
I thought about the 17-40 as well, but for my fledgeling wedding photography business I wanted the extra stop of light. That got me looking at the Canon 16-35 f2.8L, but since I am making sure that the business I book this year completely pays for the equipment I buy, the $1200. price tag threw me. So I decided to go with the Sigma this year and the Canon "L" next.
As for the limited life span, I am OK with using it for as long as I have a 1.6cf body. I'm extremely happy with the output of the 20D, and will definitely be upgrading my glass before I upgrade the body.
As for the Sigma being better...I think the pictures speak for themselves. I'd like to try a 16-35L for comparison, but the shots show that the Tamron and the Sigma are both significantly sharper and more contrasty right out of the camera. Yeah, you can make the canon match up in PS, but with 4 weddings a month w/1200 pictures each, the point is to get my PS to a minimum!
Mar 21, 2005 at 05:21 AM
p.1 #19Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
hextor wrote:
im still unsure whether to replace the 24-85 for a 18-50... or to replace the 15mm fisheye by the 12-24 mm tokina..
decisions decisions..
comments appreciated
Why not replace the 24-85 with the 28-75 Tamron. It is definitely the winner of my little test, amd more closely replicates the focal length you are replacing...
im still unsure whether to replace the 24-85 for a 18-50... or to replace the 15mm fisheye by the 12-24 mm tokina..
decisions decisions..
comments appreciated
Why not replace the 24-85 with the 28-75 Tamron. It is definitely the winner of my little test, amd more closely replicates the focal length you are replacing...
Mar 21, 2005 at 05:24 AM
p.1 #20Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Canon 18-55 "kit" vs...
Hi Jamie,
Thanks for the advice. I am not too worried about coming up from 28mm.. got a 50mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.8 that I like quite a bit.. what I find however is that the gap between the 24mm and the 15mm fisheye is quite a bit with the 1.6 crop.. basically I have a 19mm equivalent or so and then nothing up to 40mm.. so no 28mm, 24mm or even 35mm.. as such I find the 15mm fisheye to be too wide usually.
Sure I can crop it in, but I lose resolution.
Thanks!
Thanks for the advice. I am not too worried about coming up from 28mm.. got a 50mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.8 that I like quite a bit.. what I find however is that the gap between the 24mm and the 15mm fisheye is quite a bit with the 1.6 crop.. basically I have a 19mm equivalent or so and then nothing up to 40mm.. so no 28mm, 24mm or even 35mm.. as such I find the 15mm fisheye to be too wide usually.
Sure I can crop it in, but I lose resolution.
Thanks!
Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50 PM