tonal Loc: Greece

Hi everybody,

It is quite some time that I am considering getting a new lens.
I consider IS as a nice to have feature especially indoors.
I do not shoot video.
Not considering to go FF any time soon.
There is no option to test the lens (at least the Sigma).

The lenses that I have right now are the
Canon 10-18mm IS STM
Canon 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM
Canon 55-250mm IS STM
Canon 35mm F2.8 IS STM macro
Canon 50mm F1.8 STM

The last two primes fall within the range of the 18-55.
So I am thinking to either replace the standard zoom 18-55 kit lens with a faster one or add another prime within its range.

These are the options I have in mind:

1. replace my kit lens (Canon EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM) with the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM.
2. keep the kit lens that I already have and get the Canon EF-S 24mm F2.8 STM


Option 1:

The Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 OS price is getting lower and can be bought from amazon for less than 300 euros new including shipping right now
but I don't think that the stock will last for long (probably a replacement from Sigma is on the way???).

I had a look in DXOmark and compared the Canon kit lens that I have with the Canon F2.8, Tamron F2.8 and Sigma F2.8.
The constant F2.8 lenses do not look quite that sharp with the aperture wide open and there is not a huge difference in sharpness in equal apertures with the STM kit lens.
At least this is how I interpret the field map diagrams when I compare between these lenses.

The canon F2.8 17-55 is quite expensive and I do not intend to make such a large investment at this point.
The equivalent Tamron is more expensive than the Sigma and seems softer so I do not consider it as an option.

To me it seems that the "only" benefit would be the wider aperture of the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS over the Canon 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS STM
but in terms of sharpness I will probably not notice any upgrade. The Sigma offers two thirds of a stop wider aperture at the wide end and
2 stops wider aperture at the long end compared to the kit lens which might be good for stopping the action using higher shutter speeds
but the fact is that I do not usually shoot moving subjects or shooting indoors with lower ISO setting.
On the other hand sharpness in the centre looks OK and usually this is all that is needed since everything in the background won't be needed to be in focus
(actually out of focus background matters more) so soft corners would matter only if I would take a picture of a flat surface which is perpendicular to the lens.
So sharpness from corner to corner isn't that important after all.
Correct me if I am wrong.

Option 2:

The alternative option would be the Canon EF-S 24mm F2.8 STM pancake lens which seems to be sharper than all three zoom lenses at F2.8 at 24mm or near it.
It costs half the money than the Sigma BUT it doesn't have IS so I will not be able to use it indoors without raising the ISO too high.

In this case I can have three prime lenses:
1. Canon EF-S 24mm F2.8 STM
2. Canon EF-S 35mm F2.8 IS STM macro
3. Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM
which are sharper than all the other zoom lenses at the equivalent focal lengths and the 35mm could serve me well indoors since it has IS
although it is not that wide.

The third option would be to just get the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 now that the price is attractive and maybe get the Canon EF-S 24mm F2.8 STM for Christmas.

So what is your opinion?
Could the Sigma replace without noticeable degradation of image quality the prime lenses when I do not want to carry many lenses with me?
The 17mm is 30% wider with respect to 24mm so in confined spaces it does make some sense to have a wide aperture along with a wider angle.
Would you consider it a bargain at 300 euros (350$)?
Does anyone have compared the Canon STM kit lens and the Sigma lens?

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I would not buy either one as they do not improve your photos that much. Save your money and buy a better farther reaching lens later. I think you have GAS!

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

I don't own any Canon gear as I shoot Nikon, but I have the Sigma 15-50 f2.8 and can say that it is as sharp as any of my Nikon lenses that cost more than twice as much.

tonal Loc: Greece

Haha, you might be right about the GAS since I feel now and then my left hand itching (it's the left pocket were I keep my wallet).

But lets say that I feel that irresistible urge to spend some money.

The largest amount that I paid for a lens was for the 35mm macro but I love it and it is the one I use the most both for macros and as a general purpose lens (even at work to take some very close pictures of defective electronic assemblies when I can't use the digital microscope) and I really do not consider spending more than that for a lens in general.
Next in use come the 10-18 and the 55-250.
I like very much the shallow depth I can get with the 50mm but the lack of IS is constraining in low light when I am handholding the camera.
I would say that the 18-55 is the lens I use the least but it is not the focal range that puts me off...
I do not raise the ISO too much (I usually do not go above 800) because I do not like the noise I get and I hate it when I get a blurred image just because the shutter speed is not fast enough...
I guess I could improve a little bit my technique but the 1/focal length for shutter speed is a hard limit I can't beat when there is no IS and no tripod.

I forgot to mention that my camera is a Canon 600D (T3i).

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I also shoot Canon T1i - so you have a very popular Canon version that is very capable and we both have almost the same lenses. Are you interested in Micro photography? I like to use Auto White Balance and Auto ISO; I then only have to worry about other settings such as the DOF when I shoot in Av mode.
I have as my mounted lens, the old Japanese 28-105 F/3.5-4.5 II (known as the Mark Two which is discontinued) -- I had to order three before I got the one manufactured in Japan - not Tiawan. The cost was about $100. I look in eBay or Amazon for used lenses - there you can get good bargains.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Without knowing what you like to shoot, the lengths you find you have used in your favorite/most successful shots, and what you feel you wish you could do that you find yourself unable to do with your current lineup, it is impossible to give useful advice.

This leaves the GAS option. Buy the one that makes you feel cool, because any purchase you make based on what you have given will not improve your work except by chance.

tonal Loc: Greece

Hi, I like to shoot many different things. In general I will shoot anything I find interesting as long as I have the camera with me and with the wide angle and the tele lenses I am able to do that.

I am really pleased with the 35mm , the 10-18 and the 55-250.
I also like the 50mm but in low light I miss the IS in this one and if I am about to raise the ISO to 800 and above I get noise that makes the picture look as if it is not focused even though it is.
I am not pleased with this one for portraits in low light because of the noise.

It is not the features that I miss.
What I want is better low light performance.
The 35mm with IS is great but it is neither short or long.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Ride with the brand. You will be happier in the long run. Sigma losses value faster than a branded lens, and, is worth less when you go to sell, and the branded lens will give you better service, stay in specs longer and will be worth twice the Sigma after a few years. So, ride with the brand.

tonal Loc: Greece

I guess you are right but the Canon 17-55 F2.8 new costs almost three times more than the Sigma.
Even used is sold for double the price of the Sigma.
It seems like it has a better build quality but the image quality is comparable if I am going to trust the reviews I have watched and read.

On the other hand the 24mm pancake from Canon lacks IS so I will still miss the ability to take a sharp photo in low light without raising the ISO too much.

After all this said would anyone recommend the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 or not?

gordone Loc: Red Deer AB Canada

The Canon 17-55 F2.8 is a stellar lens. It is probably the best APS-C lens out there. Also sticking with the Canon lens you give you the option to correct for lens aberrations in camera using Canon lens profiles

tonal Loc: Greece

Hi, my 600D has only peripheral illumination correction but I can do it in LR.
Even if I would upgrade the body at some point the Canon lens would still be a very expensive lens.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

One-note Revhen says: Get the most recent model of the Canon 18-135mm. It will cover most of your photo opportunities with very decent quality.

tonal Loc: Greece

It does not make much sense to me getting a 18-135mm lens.
I would still need the 55-250 for the rest of the tele range.
And it still is not a great low light performer.

Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

My 17-50 works for me on my 7200

gordone Loc: Red Deer AB Canada

With the 17-55 f2.8 used one, you can use it for 3 years and sell it for what you paid for it. Try that with a Sigma....not so much