Sigma 18-50 2.8 EXDC vs. Canon 17-85 IS USM

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 Posts: 9

These two lenses are fairly close in price around here and I'm considering them as the main lense for a new digital which will likely be a Canon XT. Which do you think will be a better choice? Do you think the IS trumps the extra aperature range? The canon does offer a longer focal length which I wouldn't mind having.

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:41 pm

to me having IS is much more important on longer lenses. I personally opt for a faster aperature on my wider lenses. I have owned the 17-85 and I liked it very much. But if you plan on low light shooting the 2.8 aperature will be very valuable. I have had the same thoughts about the 24-105 F4 with IS vs the 24-70 2.8. I went with the 2.8 and when shooting weddings I think I made the right choice.

Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 57 Location: Phoenix AZ

i have the sigma 24-70 2.8 and it is a really good lens. the focus is noisy but other than that i like it allot.

I will also note that i am shooting this lens on the 5D so for me it shoots wider than it will on the XT if you don't know what I'm talking about you should read up on focal length and chip/film size.

If you have the money get a better camera. the xt is really great but a 20d 30d 1d or 5d will be better for you, more money, but much much better.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:19 pm

resevordg wrote:

If you have the money get a better camera. the xt is really great but a 20d 30d 1d or 5d will be better for you, more money, but much much better.

I disagree, I'd go for a great lens on an acceptable camera over the other way round any day of the week. True in the digital age the camera body is now more important than it once was, but there isn't an SLR on the market which can't produce superb pictures under normal shooting conditions and the Rebel XT is a fine example of a low end DSLR.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:54 pm

I will jump onboard here too. I have a friend who shoots for me from time to time with his Rebel XT. Given a low light wedding I would rather be editing and offering his files as my product than my other partner who shoots a D200.

Joined: 04 Jun 2006 Posts: 52

Mongoose wrote:

resevordg wrote:

If you have the money get a better camera. the xt is really great but a 20d 30d 1d or 5d will be better for you, more money, but much much better.

I disagree, I'd go for a great lens on an acceptable camera over the other way round any day of the week. True in the digital age the camera body is now more important than it once was, but there isn't an SLR on the market which can't produce superb pictures under normal shooting conditions and the Rebel XT is a fine example of a low end DSLR.

While this is true, I don't think a dSLR body should be treated as a means to an end. How you get to that picture is very important too. The XT and the new XTi get the job done nicely, but I far perfer the feel, weight, build, controls, buttons, menus and improvements of the 30d. THe XTi just seems fragile, small and cheap in comparison. I had the 30d on my list for a while but decided on the XTi over it for monitary as well as other reasons. If I had a few grand lying around, I'd much prefer to purchase the 30 or 40d body. 600 more dollars of body instead of 600 more dollars of lens is something I can live with.

Getting the maximum amount of performance and maximum quality of the final product for my dollar is something I used to do, but lately I've changed my buying practices. I'm far more satisfied on the whole, with a slightly more extensive product along with the piece of mind you get from knowing you purchased something that BOTH performs well and feels great.

If the 40d was on the market for a price around 1200 dollars for the body I'd gladly save a little longer and get that over the XTi.

Joined: 04 Jun 2006 Posts: 52

Mongoose wrote:

resevordg wrote:

If you have the money get a better camera. the xt is really great but a 20d 30d 1d or 5d will be better for you, more money, but much much better.

I disagree, I'd go for a great lens on an acceptable camera over the other way round any day of the week. True in the digital age the camera body is now more important than it once was, but there isn't an SLR on the market which can't produce superb pictures under normal shooting conditions and the Rebel XT is a fine example of a low end DSLR.

While this is true, I don't think a dSLR body should be treated as a means to an end. How you get to that picture is very important too. The XT and the new XTi get the job done nicely, but I far perfer the feel, weight, build, controls, buttons, menus and improvements of the 30d. THe XTi just seems fragile, small and cheap in comparison. I had the 30d on my list for a while but decided on the XTi over it for monitary as well as other reasons. If I had a few grand lying around, I'd much prefer to purchase the 30 or 40d body. 600 more dollars of body instead of 600 more dollars of lens is something I can live with.

Getting the maximum amount of performance and maximum quality of the final product for my dollar is something I used to do, but lately I've changed my buying practices. I'm far more satisfied on the whole, with a slightly more extensive product along with the piece of mind you get from knowing you purchased something that BOTH performs well and feels great.

If the 40d was on the market for a price around 1200 dollars for the body I'd gladly save a little longer and get that over the XTi.