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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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?
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:
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 canon kit lens to justify the expense?
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!
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...
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.
). 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.
I'd love to add shots from them to my comparison... 