This video really deserves the appreciation. The best part is how you use the same brick clad building with white windows for all reviews. It is really very very helpful to relate back with other reviews in terms of sharpness and chromatic aberration. You have definitely gained a lot more respect from many followers worldwide. People always like easy to understand 'quality' reviews. That comparison chart in the end, I'm sure many of us paused on that and had a nice summarised understanding. You are significantly helping people make better choices and learn technicalities of picture quality (for example: stepping down a bit to get better sharpness). Thanks a ton for your efforts.
+Christopher Frost Photography I agree with Saket Sarupria. Before, I was kind of annoyed with the same picture again and again (brick wall). But then it grew on me and realized that it was the best way to compare all of the lenses (although you have to switch in between videos). Most of the time I watch your reviews for reference when buying new lenses. Really helped me a lot and never have I made a wrong choice with my lenses! I'd say "keep it up" but then I might end up buying new lenses again and again. Haha. But still, it's always nice to get updated with the new lenses from your RUclips channel.
+Norman Mascarinas I am in the same dilemma. I have bought 4 lenses after watching Chris's videos. The videos convey a lot of background knowledge to use the gear for better results.
I just got the Sigma 17 - 50mm and it is such a beast! Even on my cheap Rebel T7, it makes it look and feel like a super professional camera and it takes really sharp pics! videos are the best with this lens! Best lens investment thus far!
Mr. Frost, your reviews are clear, concise and very methodical, I think you offer the best comparisons on youtube and appreciate the time and effort you put into each and every video, cheers.
This is what any serious lens review video (of other authors) should be like. Thorough and relevant, but concise and approachable even for non-professionals. Thank you for your excellent videos.
This is an older review but I watched it about a month ago and it lead me to buy the sigma 17-50. I couldn’t be happier, it’s become my favorite lens. Just goes to show these reviews stand the test of time. Thanks for the great review video.
Another great review from you Chris. There is however one mayor focus issue with some copies of the Sigma 18-35. I purchased my copy a year ago, and had the focusing issues on my Canon 80D. The lens consistently back focused in Live View, and when focusing through the viewfinder has been almost always front-focusing. It was very difficult if not impossible to get the desired focus, i managed to get maybe 1 usable image out of 15. I contacted my supplier and they said that it is a known issue (specially when pared with Canon 80D) and gave me a replacement copy, but i had similar issues with this copy too (a bit better, but not as it should be). Supplier offered me two options: to purchase additional USB dock and perform the calibration (which at the time looked a bit complicated to me, and as i understand it is not always successful, and also this USB dock is additional $60), or to send my Sigma along with my camera (Canon 80D) to specialised Sigma service (which in my case is in another country) for calibration. I really love the look and the feel of the lens, it is the great looking piece of glass, but those issues were a deal breaker for me so i eventually opted for Canon 17-55 instead, and so far i'm very pleased with this lens. I understand that only some copies of Sigma 18-35 have those issues, but i thought that maybe it will be useful for someone if i share my experience.
Hello there! Thank God that I read your comment here coz' I also own Canon 80D as you do and planned to buy sigma 18-35. Though I like canon 17-55 because it's a lot cheaper, I'm gearing on buying the L series lens such as 24-70 II or 85mm f/1.4. Have you tried using full frame lens on the 80D coz' I watched the video of Tony Northrup and he said not to use them on the crop sensor camera body coz' it won't be as sharp as using them on full frame camera.... I own 50mm f/1.8 and kit lens 18-135mm and now I want to upgrade my lens to a much sharper lens... Thanks in advance for replying!
Finally -great reviews, nice and short, detailed and no extra jokes and time spend + not disturbing music & calm voice. VERY good! Thank you for your time and energy spend, people get amazing reviews -all questions answered and 99% of topics covered. Please continue your work.
Watching this in 2020. Amazing review! I've been considering the Canon 17-55 as an upgrade to my kit lens for handheld work. I've also heard a lot of good things about the Sigma 18-35, so I'll probably pick one of those up as well for tripod work. Thanks Chris!
This is the best comparison video I've seen so far. The split screens really help to make an objective comparison. Glad I went for the sigma 17-50 instead of upgrading my old tamron 17-50!
The Sigma 16mm f1.4 DC DN combined with Sony a6500, and Sony's Clear Image Zoom, is a great option, giving the user a x2 zoom factor while maintaining a fast f1.4. Add the built in 5 axis body stabilization and it becomes an amazing 16 - 32mm f1.4 combination!
I was considering the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8, but the weight and cost were the downsides. However, it's a great lens. In the end I found the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 used at a reasonable price, so I went for it. It's also a great lens and very useful.
I'm confused b/w sigma 18-35 and sigma 17-50.....I'm a hobbyist..I.use canon 77d occasionally for family events(indoor), travel and pilgrimage.... How much image quality should I compromise if I were to pick sigma 17-50?
@@b.r.srihari4099 IF you took the two lenses and looked very closely in a large sized print, you might notice a slight improvement in the sharpness of the Sigma 18-33 F1.8, however is not a major difference. I find my Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 takes great shots that are sharp and have good contrast. The difference in sharpness is too small to worry about.
Excellent video! Subscribed! I'm going for 18-35 f1.8 as I'd prefer all the extra light for low light night/astro photography. Best budget lens for landscape photography IMO.
Excellent video as always. I think micro contrast and hence 3D Depth and realism is overlooked in modern lenses all too often. Corner to corner Sharpness is generally touted as the 'be all and end all'.. Needing far too many corrective lenses to accomplish, giving images with very little to no natural 3D depth. I have found, and please note that this is an entirely personal and unscientific opinion, that a lot of Sigma 'Art' lenses give pretty pretty flat images. In actual fact my two favourite lenses both have minimal glass and optimal 3D depth.. The Original Mayer-Optik-Görlitz Lydith 30mm and the Original Trioplan 100mm, the later having only 3 glass elements.
Just happened upon this comparison whilst researching a new lens upgrade for my Canon.You've just sold me on the 17-50 Sigma. Thank you for your great efforts.
Your video reviews are brilliant; they must take ages to put together but I can't think of a better way of comparing lenses. Thank-you so much for your time preparing these.
@@thatfellarosto but the difference shown in the video is more a function of contrast. Sharpness was very subtle. But the difference in contrast is huge.
Bought the canon 17-55 second hand 550 NZ dollars after watching your review. Does what I expect of it and reasonably priced. It is a heavy beast. Use for stills and it performs really well. Thanks for the spot on review
Dude ... you probably hear this all the time but, man ... how awesome are your reviews !?! All I ever want to know about lenses for my Canon are right there in your video list. Thanks a milion ! I recently got the 50mm 1.8 STM after watching your review and I am getting by far the sharpest images I ever got with my 550D. I had no idea it could do that :D I love the lens so much, just need to learn to control the DOF when taking pictures of more than 1 person. Now I just need to save a bit for this Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. Would that one's sharpness be comparable to the 50mm 1.8 STM ? Cuz the default kit-lens' got to go now that I know what my 550d can do :p
I just replaced my kit lens with the Sigma 17-50mm, thanks to your thorough review. Initial tests I've done so far blew me away. For the money, excellent value indeed. Thank you.
I had the Sigma 17-50, and it would consistently front focus at focal lengths below 24mm, effectively ruining shots. Zoomed in to 24-50, the autofocus performed fine, which was actually a bummer - because the performance was inconsistent through the zoom range, I couldn't compensate for it with the camera's autofocus adjustment. Many others have cited the same issue on their Canon bodies (mine was a 70D). It's really a shame, because the lens is good value for the money, but I ultimately returned it, because the inability to get good shots below 24mm was a total dealbreaker. I really want the Canon 17-55 now, but the price increase is a bit ridiculous in my opinion. For that money, I'm considering the Sigma 18-35 instead.
I've read that there used to be a noticeable variation in different examples of the Sigma. One guy reported being on his third before he was satisfied. I'm seriously considering the Sigma to replace my sickly non-VC Tamron 17-50 that might not make it out of the Tamron workshop if too expensive to fix. But if buying a Sigma is something of a lottery that might be a deal breaker. Although the options are pretty limited at that price point.
I experienced the exact same issue, sent it to Sigma twice, didn't help. In 2017, this lens is useful on DPAF Canon DSLRs.It shines on the 800D/200D/77D as they have a very fast Digic 7 aided DPAF. When I use 7D, 50D and 600D and (Friend's 60D & 80D) before, it sucks at wide angle as it front focused and is inconsistent too, so even 80D's W & T MFA didn't help much. But now, with 800D/T7i, I switched to Live view and it's as sharp as the Primes, fast AF with tracking (miraculously) and is amazing! Just glad that I haven't got rid of it as there are no other comparable value for money lenses.
If you are using 80D, it's good as long as the lens copy is consistent, you can correct the wide or telephoto front/back AF with 80D's MFA. And if you are okay with shooting Live view, the lens works great on all DPAF: 70D, 80D, T7i/800D, 200D, 77D and maybe with M5/6/100 with EF-M adapter.
One of the most epic videos about fast standard zoom lenses anyone has ever created!! 6:33 I find Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 to be the sharpest at widest angle + widest aperture combination in the corners.
Outstanding review thanks for your time!! I would love that 1.8.....but i might just settle for the sig 2.8 simply because of price, zoom and quality combo more bang for buck!!!
Just the review I needed to clear any doubts about the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8! Definitely will get the lens. I'll will be shooting my first wedding next month in which I have 2 months to prepare. While preparing, i quickly found out the nikkor 50 f1.8 is a huge challenge for indoors and tight spaces. So I needed a more versatile fast lens, primarily with the option to shoot wide angle. So I've been researching for weeks, considering many prime and zoom lenses and then I found this helpful video. I will definitely get the more versatile zoom lens, Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. Thanks for this methodological, in-depth comparison! Loved your narration by the way.
thanks for your great videos. very detailed and well made. i'm buying the sigma 17-50 2.8. starting wedding and indoor events. i think i will be happy with it :)
Thanks for the review on all the lens in this episode. It was good to see what the lens can offer in photography or video. I would choose the 18-35mm f1.8 because better lens in value and quality and will last a long time.
Thank you so much for putting in all the time and effort to put together this video. It was great! I think it will help a lot of people make an informed decision about which lens they want to get.
the same thing happened to me! :l I don't know how i didn't come across this video, i did a lot of research about the lens, then after buying it i realised it is NOT sharp at 50mm f/2.8. I'll sell it and drop the extra 50$ for the Sigma for sure!
THANK YOU. I want to replace my 600D's Kit Lens and needed a good comparison between the Tamron and the Sigma 17-50mm lenses. I will check out some other reviews but I am pretty sure that I will get the Sigma. :) In Germany the price difference is just about 10€ (lowest prices) at the moment.
Excellent presentation! I am into amateur photography for 7-8 years now, and I have never looked so deep into a lens so far. Thank you for educating me. Please keep up the good work.
Ricky Gee Maybe that big aperture lens was a new thing for you? I've been in your position before even with my L lens. The problem usually about focusing and very shallow depth of field. After several times getting to know how to use it properly, I always get better and sharp picture.
The problem with cheapo 2.8 lenses is that the sharpness is crap at f/2.8, which destroys the very purpose of the lens since you have to use it at f/4 to get good results
Hi Christopher, excellent review as always! I have a canon 80D and thinking about purchasing the Sigma 18-35 1.8 but am worried about some complaints I heard regarding the Autofocus not working properly with the canon 70D, and maybe the problems will persist on the 80D, should I take the risk?
Excellent, excellent review Christopher. Still cannot decide! Leaning towards Sigma 18-35 1.8, with the Canon 17-55 2.8 & Sigma 17-50 2.8 closely behind. All 3 have such a great appeal.
Wow, this video was a huuuuge help to me. This was by far the most thorough comparison of the 4 lenses I've been hung up on for weeks. Thanks so much for putting in the hard work, I now know what lens will work best for me personally. Cheers!
+Willz I read an interview where the CEO said he wanted to include OS, but it was already such a challenge just to produce an f/1.8 zoom that they couldn't at that stage. Makes sense to me really, still, a shame
Not really... take a look on this gif, there are many models of camera stabilizers and some cameras have the sensor stabilizer too. It's a great lens for this price, in special for me in Brazil, here one dollar worths 4 reais. 9gag.com/gag/awrXb5x/camera-stabilizer
Excellent video! This sums up my decision I had last week. I have been researching a kit upgrade lens for about a fortnight. Finally took the plunge and ordered a canon 17-55 f2.8, it was a close decision between that and the sigma 18-35, to be honest the extra zoom range swung it for me. Hope I won't be disappointed! Keep up the good work!
WOW! What a great effort you must have put to make this review - thanks a lot! I am very grateful that someone like you go through all this work to share with the rest of us - all appreciation and respect! At the other hand I am sitting here right now with a bit of a down-feeling with my equipment and I hope you can help me. The down-feeling is because I actually thought I already did do at bit of homework before choosing my equipment (however, not very expensive) and now I am not so sure anymore. I have: Canon 60d (crop 1.6) Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 VC Canon 50 mm f/1.8 Tamron 18-270 mm f/3.5-6.3 (used seldom after I got Tamron 17-50 mm) My main photography need is somewhat around ‘everyday-life’ - that is i.e. walking through a new city and trying to get nice shots of both my family/other people, atmosphere, details here and there etc. Besides I shoot a lot indoor - people, situations, food (for the latter I often use Canon 50 mm f/1.8). I more or less don’t do landscape, small flying objects like birds (…) or other extreme zoom-objects. I starting checking out reviews because I thought I might add a lens, i.e. Sigma 30 or 35 mm f/1.4. Once I got into the reviews and a lot of comments/experiences from others, I started thinking about the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 instead. And this is where the problems started… If I want the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 I should get rid of my quite new Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 VC (which I bought due to great reviews). I got the recommendation elsewhere to also get rid of my Tamron 18-270 mm f/3.5-6.3 (which is fair enough since its use has been replaced by Tamron 17-50 mm but still hurts to sell since I bought it with the camera after a lot of reading reviews - but my budget probably wasn’t that big then) - and by time replace it with a used Canon 70-200 mm f/4. What do you think? I know from this review that you are not defending my Tamron 17-50 mm and I know that you are very fond of Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8. But… Will I not be missing important zoom range from the 35 to 50 mm? Could the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 become an all-round lens for my need/use in your opinion? And next - should I get both Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 and another one to ‘take over’ where 35 mm ends? Which would you then recommend for my use - i.e. 24-105? Or as recommended by someone else 70-200? Can you explain to me what exactly you use all the mm’s for in there zooms - i.e. the 70-200 - when do you take advantage of that kind of zoom compared to the 17-50 mm range? I really hope you can help me because it seems you have a really great overview at the kind of lenses I a considering (+ you have a great attitude at what you are doing;-) Best Regards, Susanne
one year ago your review "saved me" from getting a brand new tamron 17-50mm, i didn't have the money to purchase a brand new Sigma 17-50mm but i waited and finally managed to purchase one. The image quality was a HUGE improvement over the kit lens and the only complain that i have is that the lens its a little bulky for street photo (but then again all 4 of these lenses would have that problem). Your review should be mandatory for anyone trying to buy any of these lenses
I have the Sigma 17-50mm, purchased new on eBay a few months ago for $293 shipped to my house. Even at the MSRP of over $400 it is a bargain. At under $300, it's a steal! Thanks for the recommendation. Your video is absolutely spot on!
Thanks for your hard work on this video! I purchased the Sigma 17-50 last year based on this review. I ended up returning it because of the clicking when autofocusing. I am finally purchasing the Canon 17-55 now and hope the autofocus will be a bit quieter for my video work. Thanks again Christopher!
Excellent work. I own the Sigma 17-50 HSM (no OS because it's Pentax), and I've been looking at the Sigma 18-35 as either a replacement or an addition for astrophotography. This video reminded me how much I love my Sigma 17-50, and I appreciate all the effort you put into the detailed 4-way comparison. Even years after you made this video, it's still providing helpful insights.
Great info dude. Something I want to point out though that you have not covered is the overall accuracy of autofocus on these lenses. The Tamron and Sigma lenses have inconsistent focusing, giving both front and back focus issues at times, and tend to hunt a little in bad light. This is not correctable since it is not just one issue or the other. The Canon lens is pretty spot on for AF, and I use mine regularly for sports as well as jsut about everything else. The Sigma 18-35mm is compatible with the USB dock, and that is helpful but doesn't solve the inconstant focus issues. The 17-50mm Sigma however is not dock compatible. I still suggest it to people that want a fast zoom in the standard range on APS-C cameras that also do not want to pony up for the Canon. The inconsistent focus is really only a problem to those relying on it for sports/action photos or portraits, and to be fair there are some things to consider there. For one, anyone that it would matter to is likely a pro or a very serious enthusiast, where the extra cost isn't as big a deal since they know what they are getting. For people that just need better low light performance on their APS-C camera there are not a lot of options in this range, and most of them are prime lenses like the EF-S 24mm F2.8 or even the EF 50mm F1.8. The Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 is priced well enough that jsut about anyone could save up for it and justify it, so long as what they are finding is that they can't make due with a prime lens. It cost less than a new camera outright, and will add a lot more to your kit than a new camera will (depending on how old your cameras is). When you consider how important the standard zoom range is for photography, you could probably say that one of these lenses is the best investment for people that are transitioning from beginner to enthusiast. My 17-55mm lives on my #2 camera, and only comes off to put my 10-18mm on to take the wide shots that it can't. Me, well I can't be missing focus so I go with the Canon for the best overall performance. I really wish Canon would make a version of that 18-35mm F1.8 though, along with the 50-100mm F1.8 as well. With the native Canon performance for AF they would rule the APS-C world!
Bikash Lakra Both work with your camera, so no worries there. I think it is a comparison between cost and accuracy. The Canon is the most accurate focus, and mine rarely misses. The Sigma is still pretty accurate, but probably 1 to 10 shots out of every 100 will either front or back focus just as a limitation of the third party lens. I think for most the Sigma works fine. If you can afford the Canon and need to reliably nail focus, then that is the best bet. If you can't really spend a lot on gear but want better low light with the versatility of a zoom that is also pretty sharp, the Sigma can perform well. Just be aware the USB dock is not compatible with the 17-50mm Sigma, so you won't be able to tune it should it be problematic. I use the Canon, but I cover events and sports so AF needs to be spot on.
Clear distinction for all the 4 lenses Chris! Truly my short list among the four and eyeing to save up are the Sigma 17-50mm and the 18 -35mm "art" lens. Have read and heard that the 18-35 mm of Sigma tops most reviews, yet it now counts how my pocket power can sustain its cost. Thank you for sharing, well explained! Regards.
Thanks, Christopher. I had so many doubts about which lens to buy and I simply gave up saving money. It can not be done when the prices keep rising like they do around here. I just purchased the Sigma 17-50 mm f2.8 OS and I feel very confident about the results I going to get because of your reviews. I have to agree with Manjeet (bellow), you are by far the best lens reviewer I found. Keep up the great work. :)
Thank you friend. Very enlightening and helped me choose between 18-35mm (more expensive) and 17-50mm (cost / benefit). Almost bought the 18-35 but your video made me choose by 17-50. Greetings from Brazil.
I was racking my brains trying to figure out whether to buy the Sigma 17-50 or the Canon 17-55. This video was incredibly informative, well put together and allowed me to make an informed choice. A very well put together video, I echo what was said in the comments below; we appreciate the effort put into this video. Thanks!
Subscribed. I love when you're watching one of your videos, and you say to yourself, "Man, I would love to know more about THIS lens.." And when you look to the right, there's another one of your videos about that exact lens. 10/10. 100% would subscribe again.
Great review. I really appreciate seeing both tamron and sigma side by side as these are two possible options for me (a casual nikon user). Comparing the Sigma 18-35 was a bit unfair. Personally I'd rather have Nikon standard zoom lens out there, but this would mean using nikon body and probably different image quality overall so I won't complain. I really like your reviews, showing the same picture for each lens is a very good idea as it gives an opportunity to see the lens image quality, rather than photography skills (vs other reviews on youtube). You sir got a big like and subscribe. Keep it up !:)
Great review Christopher! I wish other people would review like this. I had the Canon 17-55mm for a year. I loved it at first, but no matter how hard I tried to keep dust free, it was just a common flaw with this lens. Doesn't really affect image quality, but I didn't want my clients seeing so much dust in it when I was shooting them. The weight of the glass always pulled my zoom out when I would shoot downwards. Not good when shooting video. I also needed that extra light that my 50mm 1.8 offered. Finally when zoomed all the way to 55mm the sharpness decreased. The sweet spot is around 28mm so I would often avoid zooming to 55mm. I took the plunge and ordered the Sigma 18-35mm, but due to demand it has been back ordered. It should arrive in a few more weeks. I always shoot with a tripod our shoulder support so the lack of IS shouldn't be a problem. I sold the pricey Canon 17-55mm, and will use my 50mm for my zoom and maybe get the 70-200mm or 85mm in the future.
Thank you kindly for this highly informative comparison. You helped me choose the best value for money lens. I was looking at the Tamron earlier, but your videos made me realize that the Sigma is much much better.
Wow,this is really insane review, amazing!!! Just now I bought a sigma 18-35mm of second hand, I want to start with Video but my principal way is portrait and fashion photography and some street photography, for that I went for this lens. Thanks for your time to check everything and make this video!
I think Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is great but not so universal as the others.. It's pretty hard to focus with f1.8 and is has only up to 35mm so it's not so good for portrait photography. On the other hand, it should be usefull in other types of photography.My opinion is that the best of this 4, is Sigma 17-50 f2.8 because it has bigger range, up to 50mm and aperature so good, that you don't even need more. Canon is pretty expensive compared to sigma. I'm definetelly choosing sigma 17-50mm f2.8. Thank's christopher for this review, it helps a lot! :)
Excellent comparison! I'm drooling over the Canon, yet the Sigma 17-50 is a great alternative, especially now that the price has gone down a lot. It's even cheaper than the Tamron in my local photo store. Thanks for this, Chris!
It was probably a lot of work to create this video, so I let you know that this video is so incredibly helpfull for me. At the moment I'm thinking about buying exaclty one of those 4 lenses and this is such a nice comparison.
For APS-C Cameras Sigma really has done a great job putting out high quality sharp lenses for their customers at an amazing value, I used the 18-35 1.8 during a wedding reception, I loved the quality, I did wish it had OS and had a lil trouble gaining focus in low light but when it did I was highly impressed. Overall, build quality and performance was delicious to say the least. I will be purchasing that one, I do also need a good lens that has OS so I may purchase both of the sigmas. Though you have not planned to, I would sooo love to see you review the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 if you get the chance
Really great comparison after all these years, its still valid! The real question is WHY you want to go for a bigger aperture, therfore does it really matter to have a smaller zoom-range, i don't think so, if zoom-range is a concern than go for a 18-250mm, taking into account its a compromise in EVERY focal length, and due to weight restrictions its also mediocre in every condition. The Sigma has no IS, why should it have it, I have IBIS therefore EVERY lense i use is stabilzed, because its not the job done in lens but in the body. The 18-35 is heavy, YES. Due to its zoom limitations its sharp and fast nearly as a prime lens, because it has to make less compromises. If i go for a hike with less weight i take to WR-Zooms 18-135, 55-300 (and probably the 10-20), enough overlap in Zoom to have not every time the wrong one mounted, if i go for decent fotos with more equipment then the short zoom ranges don't bother me and i can choose the appropriate lense for every situation.
Watching in 2022. 😊 Thanks for this.. I have Tamron 17-50MM best for video work.. And also I have Sigma 18-35mm best for photo. Probably I should get sigma 17-50mm or either canon 17-55mm for video.. I need the stabilization.. I am disappointed about the sigma 18-35mm for video work but for photo is a monster sharp at f2.8, it's the sweet spot.
@@Sanatas66623 It's red and white dot.. It's so sharp for photos.. But for video, you need to buy a gimbal that handles its weight.. It's so heavy.. I have the lense already.. Sigma f1.8 18-35mm Art Lens Sigma f2.8 17-50mm OS HSM Tamron f2.8 17-50mm SP VC
Brilliant review Christopher 👌👍👏. I have always first read your reviews before buying any lens. Recently bought the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 lens featured here only after reading all your reviews on it. Its an amazing lens. I also feel that nowadays with so much competition between different lens manufacturers, almost all lenses fare neck to neck in performance. Thanks again for the review. Keep them coming 👍
Thanks for all the amazing work you do. Did you know your videos would be a amatuer photographers dream resource nearly a decade later? Going with the cannon since these days on the used market it is going for roughly the same price as the sigma 17-50. Though the cannon is still fetching a astounding $700 for a direct canon website refurb
Amazing review, covers all of the important stuff (often overlooked by other reviewers who only mention specs) in great depth. I'll definitely come back to your channel for other lens reviews!
He is the best lens reviewer of all time!!
4 years later i still agree
@@blee_d This is me in 2024 still agreeing.
This video really deserves the appreciation. The best part is how you use the same brick clad building with white windows for all reviews. It is really very very helpful to relate back with other reviews in terms of sharpness and chromatic aberration.
You have definitely gained a lot more respect from many followers worldwide. People always like easy to understand 'quality' reviews. That comparison chart in the end, I'm sure many of us paused on that and had a nice summarised understanding.
You are significantly helping people make better choices and learn technicalities of picture quality (for example: stepping down a bit to get better sharpness).
Thanks a ton for your efforts.
+Saket Sarupria Thanks so much for your encouraging words! Glad you enjoy the reviews.
+Christopher Frost Photography I agree with Saket Sarupria. Before, I was kind of annoyed with the same picture again and again (brick wall). But then it grew on me and realized that it was the best way to compare all of the lenses (although you have to switch in between videos). Most of the time I watch your reviews for reference when buying new lenses. Really helped me a lot and never have I made a wrong choice with my lenses!
I'd say "keep it up" but then I might end up buying new lenses again and again. Haha. But still, it's always nice to get updated with the new lenses from your RUclips channel.
+Norman Mascarinas I am in the same dilemma. I have bought 4 lenses after watching Chris's videos. The videos convey a lot of background knowledge to use the gear for better results.
ikr
I just got the Sigma 17 - 50mm and it is such a beast! Even on my cheap Rebel T7, it makes it look and feel like a super professional camera and it takes really sharp pics! videos are the best with this lens! Best lens investment thus far!
It is a fantastic lens, I love using it on my Nikon D7100
Mr. Frost, your reviews are clear, concise and very methodical, I think you offer the best comparisons on youtube and appreciate the time and effort you put into each and every video, cheers.
Thanks so much for your kind words!
This is what any serious lens review video (of other authors) should be like. Thorough and relevant, but concise and approachable even for non-professionals. Thank you for your excellent videos.
This is an older review but I watched it about a month ago and it lead me to buy the sigma 17-50. I couldn’t be happier, it’s become my favorite lens. Just goes to show these reviews stand the test of time. Thanks for the great review video.
Detailed, entertaining, informative, easy to understand... when it comes to reviews, I don't think there's anyone better! Thank you so much.
Ethan Swords Absolutely. I haven't seen better reviews on RUclips yet. Please, keep up the good work.
+Ethan Swords Also Agree!
Thank you. The Sigma 17-50 it is then.
and how is it to you after a year?)
Very happy with it. Super sharp and great build. Cost me less than £200 a year ago.
ebay?
styx no, toys r us
mark b may sound stupid, but is it much sharper than kit lens?
This is the best lens comparison video I've ever seen! Excellent work!
Hands down the best lens review format on RUclips PERIOD! The narration, the examples, and no fanboyism.
this is by far the highest quality review out of any other one on youtube, amazingly good job!
Another great review from you Chris. There is however one mayor focus issue with some copies of the Sigma 18-35. I purchased my copy a year ago, and had the focusing issues on my Canon 80D. The lens consistently back focused in Live View, and when focusing through the viewfinder has been almost always front-focusing. It was very difficult if not impossible to get the desired focus, i managed to get maybe 1 usable image out of 15. I contacted my supplier and they said that it is a known issue (specially when pared with Canon 80D) and gave me a replacement copy, but i had similar issues with this copy too (a bit better, but not as it should be). Supplier offered me two options: to purchase additional USB dock and perform the calibration (which at the time looked a bit complicated to me, and as i understand it is not always successful, and also this USB dock is additional $60), or to send my Sigma along with my camera (Canon 80D) to specialised Sigma service (which in my case is in another country) for calibration. I really love the look and the feel of the lens, it is the great looking piece of glass, but those issues were a deal breaker for me so i eventually opted for Canon 17-55 instead, and so far i'm very pleased with this lens. I understand that only some copies of Sigma 18-35 have those issues, but i thought that maybe it will be useful for someone if i share my experience.
Hello there! Thank God that I read your comment here coz' I also own Canon 80D as you do and planned to buy sigma 18-35. Though I like canon 17-55 because it's a lot cheaper, I'm gearing on buying the L series lens such as 24-70 II or 85mm f/1.4. Have you tried using full frame lens on the 80D coz' I watched the video of Tony Northrup and he said not to use them on the crop sensor camera body coz' it won't be as sharp as using them on full frame camera.... I own 50mm f/1.8 and kit lens 18-135mm and now I want to upgrade my lens to a much sharper lens... Thanks in advance for replying!
I got the Sigma 17-50 last week and broke it in on 2day festival. So far so good. I'm loving quality and range on my crop sensor.
For a second I thought you broke it and how unlucky you are. You scared me :D
Omar Cordy didn’t get your comment
Did you break the lens?
@@mumtahidakash, "broke it in" is another way of saying he used his new lens for the first time. It's just a figure of speech. Gotta love English.
Finally -great reviews, nice and short, detailed and no extra jokes and time spend + not disturbing music & calm voice. VERY good! Thank you for your time and energy spend, people get amazing reviews -all questions answered and 99% of topics covered. Please continue your work.
Watching this in 2020. Amazing review! I've been considering the Canon 17-55 as an upgrade to my kit lens for handheld work. I've also heard a lot of good things about the Sigma 18-35, so I'll probably pick one of those up as well for tripod work. Thanks Chris!
This is the best comparison video I've seen so far. The split screens really help to make an objective comparison. Glad I went for the sigma 17-50 instead of upgrading my old tamron 17-50!
The Sigma 16mm f1.4 DC DN combined with Sony a6500, and Sony's Clear Image Zoom, is a great option, giving the user a x2 zoom factor while maintaining a fast f1.4. Add the built in 5 axis body stabilization and it becomes an amazing 16 - 32mm f1.4 combination!
Still I am watching this video in 2020. It is all time best review for those lenses.
I was considering the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8, but the weight and cost were the downsides. However, it's a great lens. In the end I found the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 used at a reasonable price, so I went for it. It's also a great lens and very useful.
I'm confused b/w sigma 18-35 and sigma 17-50.....I'm a hobbyist..I.use canon 77d occasionally for family events(indoor), travel and pilgrimage.... How much image quality should I compromise if I were to pick sigma 17-50?
@@b.r.srihari4099 IF you took the two lenses and looked very closely in a large sized print, you might notice a slight improvement in the sharpness of the Sigma 18-33 F1.8, however is not a major difference. I find my Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 takes great shots that are sharp and have good contrast. The difference in sharpness is too small to worry about.
@@BobDiaz123 Thanks a lot for your reply
Excellent video! Subscribed! I'm going for 18-35 f1.8 as I'd prefer all the extra light for low light night/astro photography. Best budget lens for landscape photography IMO.
wow the Tamron lens is sooooooooooo soft compared to the others.
Even 5 years later you helped me out with this review. The sigma lens (17-50) is just a good pick. Thank you very much.
Wow! This is one of the best comparison video's i've ever seen! Very enlightening. Big thanks!
Excellent video as always.
I think micro contrast and hence 3D Depth and realism is overlooked in modern lenses all too often. Corner to corner Sharpness is generally touted as the 'be all and end all'.. Needing far too many corrective lenses to accomplish, giving images with very little to no natural 3D depth.
I have found, and please note that this is an entirely personal and unscientific opinion, that a lot of Sigma 'Art' lenses give pretty pretty flat images.
In actual fact my two favourite lenses both have minimal glass and optimal 3D depth.. The Original Mayer-Optik-Görlitz Lydith 30mm and the Original Trioplan 100mm, the later having only 3 glass elements.
14:15 If you want a quick answer! Great video!
Solid advice, thanks!
Thanks mate.
Nanbenda😘 (Tamil)
You sir... are my new hero
Just happened upon this comparison whilst researching a new lens upgrade for my Canon.You've just sold me on the 17-50 Sigma. Thank you for your great efforts.
Very useful:) ! Im going to buy the sigma 17-50mm. Affordable price with good image quality
Your video reviews are brilliant; they must take ages to put together but I can't think of a better way of comparing lenses. Thank-you so much for your time preparing these.
I think the sigma 17-50 was significantly sharper at times
Me too. I may be biased because I just bought one, but still
Not sharper, more contrast. 3 years for this answer :)
@@Vinizuca ive used all 3 (except for the tamron), and in my own experience the sigma 17-50 was the sharpest wide open
@@thatfellarosto but the difference shown in the video is more a function of contrast. Sharpness was very subtle. But the difference in contrast is huge.
Bought the canon 17-55 second hand 550 NZ dollars after watching your review. Does what I expect of it and reasonably priced. It is a heavy beast. Use for stills and it performs really well. Thanks for the spot on review
Dude ... you probably hear this all the time but, man ... how awesome are your reviews !?! All I ever want to know about lenses for my Canon are right there in your video list. Thanks a milion !
I recently got the 50mm 1.8 STM after watching your review and I am getting by far the sharpest images I ever got with my 550D. I had no idea it could do that :D I love the lens so much, just need to learn to control the DOF when taking pictures of more than 1 person.
Now I just need to save a bit for this Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. Would that one's sharpness be comparable to the 50mm 1.8 STM ? Cuz the default kit-lens' got to go now that I know what my 550d can do :p
+Philippe Vanagt Glad you're enjoying the reviews! Both those lenses will be similarly sharp at f/2.8 - very sharp
even 6 years later, this video is really helped me to decide my next lens. Thankyou very much!
The overall winner here is Sigma 17-50 mm f2.8
I just replaced my kit lens with the Sigma 17-50mm, thanks to your thorough review. Initial tests I've done so far blew me away. For the money, excellent value indeed. Thank you.
I had the Sigma 17-50, and it would consistently front focus at focal lengths below 24mm, effectively ruining shots. Zoomed in to 24-50, the autofocus performed fine, which was actually a bummer - because the performance was inconsistent through the zoom range, I couldn't compensate for it with the camera's autofocus adjustment. Many others have cited the same issue on their Canon bodies (mine was a 70D). It's really a shame, because the lens is good value for the money, but I ultimately returned it, because the inability to get good shots below 24mm was a total dealbreaker. I really want the Canon 17-55 now, but the price increase is a bit ridiculous in my opinion. For that money, I'm considering the Sigma 18-35 instead.
Jeremy Galloway canon 70D sucks. to be honest, 60D is much better.
I've read that there used to be a noticeable variation in different examples of the Sigma. One guy reported being on his third before he was satisfied. I'm seriously considering the Sigma to replace my sickly non-VC Tamron 17-50 that might not make it out of the Tamron workshop if too expensive to fix. But if buying a Sigma is something of a lottery that might be a deal breaker. Although the options are pretty limited at that price point.
I experienced the exact same issue, sent it to Sigma twice, didn't help. In 2017, this lens is useful on DPAF Canon DSLRs.It shines on the 800D/200D/77D as they have a very fast Digic 7 aided DPAF. When I use 7D, 50D and 600D and (Friend's 60D & 80D) before, it sucks at wide angle as it front focused and is inconsistent too, so even 80D's W & T MFA didn't help much. But now, with 800D/T7i, I switched to Live view and it's as sharp as the Primes, fast AF with tracking (miraculously) and is amazing! Just glad that I haven't got rid of it as there are no other comparable value for money lenses.
If you are using 80D, it's good as long as the lens copy is consistent, you can correct the wide or telephoto front/back AF with 80D's MFA. And if you are okay with shooting Live view, the lens works great on all DPAF: 70D, 80D, T7i/800D, 200D, 77D and maybe with M5/6/100 with EF-M adapter.
Themi P i have canon 200d do u think sigma 17-50mm will give me sharpest image or should i go for canon 17-55mm expensive one.??
One of the most epic videos about fast standard zoom lenses anyone has ever created!! 6:33 I find Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 to be the sharpest at widest angle + widest aperture combination in the corners.
Outstanding review thanks for your time!! I would love that 1.8.....but i might just settle for the sig 2.8 simply because of price, zoom and quality combo more bang for buck!!!
Just the review I needed to clear any doubts about the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8! Definitely will get the lens. I'll will be shooting my first wedding next month in which I have 2 months to prepare. While preparing, i quickly found out the nikkor 50 f1.8 is a huge challenge for indoors and tight spaces. So I needed a more versatile fast lens, primarily with the option to shoot wide angle. So I've been researching for weeks, considering many prime and zoom lenses and then I found this helpful video. I will definitely get the more versatile zoom lens, Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. Thanks for this methodological, in-depth comparison! Loved your narration by the way.
thanks for your great videos. very detailed and well made. i'm buying the sigma 17-50 2.8. starting wedding and indoor events. i think i will be happy with it :)
Thanks for the review on all the lens in this episode. It was good to see what the lens can offer in photography or video. I would choose the 18-35mm f1.8 because better lens in value and quality and will last a long time.
thank you for your hard work, great video.
This is probably the best video out there. Watched probably hundreds....maybe thousands. Great job man.
Your vids are really good. 10/10 still deciding but your helping !
Thank you so much for putting in all the time and effort to put together this video. It was great! I think it will help a lot of people make an informed decision about which lens they want to get.
Thanks, very informative and well produced video.
Awesome comparison 👍. Very well done. Especially love how you show the f1.8 in comparison to the other f2.8 lenses 👏
Damn I just bought a 2nd handTamron for USD $200 and I saw this video. I am such a noob.
the same thing happened to me! :l I don't know how i didn't come across this video, i did a lot of research about the lens, then after buying it i realised it is NOT sharp at 50mm f/2.8. I'll sell it and drop the extra 50$ for the Sigma for sure!
Feel sorry for you bro... Hope that you managed to get great pics out of that Tamron, and that by now you've improved your setup!
How do you like it? The sigma is almost 2 times the price of Tamron so I'm thinking of going for the tamron
I'll buy it
Impressed with the lens review itself !
Personal thoughts and objective reviewing were extremely well balanced.
THANK YOU. I want to replace my 600D's Kit Lens and needed a good comparison between the Tamron and the Sigma 17-50mm lenses. I will check out some other reviews but I am pretty sure that I will get the Sigma. :) In Germany the price difference is just about 10€ (lowest prices) at the moment.
Get the Sigma! Check out my full review of the lens if you need to know more :-)
Alright! Thanks for replying so quickly.
But I got a question. Does f/2.8 really mean twice as much light as f/3.5 and four times more light than f/5.6?! :o
KRusEdits
f/2.8 is 66% more light than f/3.5, 100% more than f/4, and four times more than f/5.6
Excellent presentation! I am into amateur photography for 7-8 years now, and I have never looked so deep into a lens so far. Thank you for educating me. Please keep up the good work.
I've got a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. Its a soft, fuzzy turd of a lens. horrible quality. Stay away.
Ricky Gee Maybe that big aperture lens was a new thing for you? I've been in your position before even with my L lens. The problem usually about focusing and very shallow depth of field. After several times getting to know how to use it properly, I always get better and sharp picture.
Ary Himawan Um, no. Nothing new....
Same Its shit lens =/
The problem with cheapo 2.8 lenses is that the sharpness is crap at f/2.8, which destroys the very purpose of the lens since you have to use it at f/4 to get good results
Just ordered the sigma 17-50 2.8, so excited to receive it. It would be a great upgrade from the kit lens 18-55mm.
Hi Christopher, excellent review as always! I have a canon 80D and thinking about purchasing the Sigma 18-35 1.8 but am worried about some complaints I heard regarding the Autofocus not working properly with the canon 70D, and maybe the problems will persist on the 80D, should I take the risk?
Naor Daniel have you bought it? I have the 80d and I’m considering the same thing now
Have any one you guys bought it? Man, I wish there was a new lens alternative/successor
Great video. It's amazing that these lenses are so old and still being sold. Amazing!
Thanks , very nice video.
The sigma ART line is incredible. All of their lenses paired with the USB dock is so good for the price
"It has the others for breakfast" :-D Great review, thanks a lot!
Excellent, excellent review Christopher. Still cannot decide! Leaning towards Sigma 18-35 1.8, with the Canon 17-55 2.8 & Sigma 17-50 2.8 closely behind. All 3 have such a great appeal.
Thank you sir...nice & very helpful video tutorial.......
Your time to make this video is much appreciated! I was debating between the Sigma lenses and this video helped with making the decision! Thank you!!!
But DxOmark's scores shows that sigma 17-50(score=16) is better than canon 17-55.(score=15)
That is BIAS WEBSITE, promoting nikon
Wow, this video was a huuuuge help to me. This was by far the most thorough comparison of the 4 lenses I've been hung up on for weeks. Thanks so much for putting in the hard work, I now know what lens will work best for me personally. Cheers!
Why didn't Sigma put IS in that lens!? Thats a deal-breaker for me.
+Willz I read an interview where the CEO said he wanted to include OS, but it was already such a challenge just to produce an f/1.8 zoom that they couldn't at that stage. Makes sense to me really, still, a shame
+Willz You don't really need IS for 18-35mm... And for video you can always use those camera stabilizers...
+Taiguara Dicó but even with stabilizer the videos still will shake isnt it?
Not really... take a look on this gif, there are many models of camera stabilizers and some cameras have the sensor stabilizer too. It's a great lens for this price, in special for me in Brazil, here one dollar worths 4 reais.
9gag.com/gag/awrXb5x/camera-stabilizer
+Taiguara Dicó But that camera in the gif is powered by anti-gravity generator....
Excellent video! This sums up my decision I had last week. I have been researching a kit upgrade lens for about a fortnight. Finally took the plunge and ordered a canon 17-55 f2.8, it was a close decision between that and the sigma 18-35, to be honest the extra zoom range swung it for me. Hope I won't be disappointed!
Keep up the good work!
I'm so happy with my Canon 17-55. Very accurate review, good job!
WOW! What a great effort you must have put to make this review - thanks a lot!
I am very grateful that someone like you go through all this work to share with the rest of us - all appreciation and respect! At the other hand I am sitting here right now with a bit of a down-feeling with my equipment and I hope you can help me. The down-feeling is because I actually thought I already did do at bit of homework before choosing my equipment (however, not very expensive) and now I am not so sure anymore.
I have:
Canon 60d (crop 1.6)
Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 VC
Canon 50 mm f/1.8
Tamron 18-270 mm f/3.5-6.3 (used seldom after I got Tamron 17-50 mm)
My main photography need is somewhat around ‘everyday-life’ - that is i.e. walking through a new city and trying to get nice shots of both my family/other people, atmosphere, details here and there etc. Besides I shoot a lot indoor - people, situations, food (for the latter I often use Canon 50 mm f/1.8). I more or less don’t do landscape, small flying objects like birds (…) or other extreme zoom-objects.
I starting checking out reviews because I thought I might add a lens, i.e. Sigma 30 or 35 mm f/1.4. Once I got into the reviews and a lot of comments/experiences from others, I started thinking about the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 instead.
And this is where the problems started… If I want the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 I should get rid of my quite new Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 VC (which I bought due to great reviews). I got the recommendation elsewhere to also get rid of my Tamron 18-270 mm f/3.5-6.3 (which is fair enough since its use has been replaced by Tamron 17-50 mm but still hurts to sell since I bought it with the camera after a lot of reading reviews - but my budget probably wasn’t that big then) - and by time replace it with a used Canon 70-200 mm f/4.
What do you think? I know from this review that you are not defending my Tamron 17-50 mm and I know that you are very fond of Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8. But… Will I not be missing important zoom range from the 35 to 50 mm? Could the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 become an all-round lens for my need/use in your opinion?
And next - should I get both Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 and another one to ‘take over’ where 35 mm ends? Which would you then recommend for my use - i.e. 24-105? Or as recommended by someone else 70-200? Can you explain to me what exactly you use all the mm’s for in there zooms - i.e. the 70-200 - when do you take advantage of that kind of zoom compared to the 17-50 mm range?
I really hope you can help me because it seems you have a really great overview at the kind of lenses I a considering (+ you have a great attitude at what you are doing;-)
Best Regards,
Susanne
one year ago your review "saved me" from getting a brand new tamron 17-50mm, i didn't have the money to purchase a brand new Sigma 17-50mm but i waited and finally managed to purchase one. The image quality was a HUGE improvement over the kit lens and the only complain that i have is that the lens its a little bulky for street photo (but then again all 4 of these lenses would have that problem).
Your review should be mandatory for anyone trying to buy any of these lenses
How's the af
Insane comparison this must have taken forever!! Thanks for the summary at the end to!
I have the Sigma 17-50mm, purchased new on eBay a few months ago for $293 shipped to my house. Even at the MSRP of over $400 it is a bargain. At under $300, it's a steal! Thanks for the recommendation. Your video is absolutely spot on!
+uscfroadie That's a great deal!
This review is SO great! I'm shocked you don't have any affiliate links to the lenses themselves. Thank you so much!
Thanks for your hard work on this video! I purchased the Sigma 17-50 last year based on this review. I ended up returning it because of the clicking when autofocusing. I am finally purchasing the Canon 17-55 now and hope the autofocus will be a bit quieter for my video work. Thanks again Christopher!
Excellent work. I own the Sigma 17-50 HSM (no OS because it's Pentax), and I've been looking at the Sigma 18-35 as either a replacement or an addition for astrophotography. This video reminded me how much I love my Sigma 17-50, and I appreciate all the effort you put into the detailed 4-way comparison. Even years after you made this video, it's still providing helpful insights.
Great info dude. Something I want to point out though that you have not covered is the overall accuracy of autofocus on these lenses. The Tamron and Sigma lenses have inconsistent focusing, giving both front and back focus issues at times, and tend to hunt a little in bad light. This is not correctable since it is not just one issue or the other. The Canon lens is pretty spot on for AF, and I use mine regularly for sports as well as jsut about everything else. The Sigma 18-35mm is compatible with the USB dock, and that is helpful but doesn't solve the inconstant focus issues. The 17-50mm Sigma however is not dock compatible. I still suggest it to people that want a fast zoom in the standard range on APS-C cameras that also do not want to pony up for the Canon. The inconsistent focus is really only a problem to those relying on it for sports/action photos or portraits, and to be fair there are some things to consider there. For one, anyone that it would matter to is likely a pro or a very serious enthusiast, where the extra cost isn't as big a deal since they know what they are getting. For people that just need better low light performance on their APS-C camera there are not a lot of options in this range, and most of them are prime lenses like the EF-S 24mm F2.8 or even the EF 50mm F1.8. The Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 is priced well enough that jsut about anyone could save up for it and justify it, so long as what they are finding is that they can't make due with a prime lens. It cost less than a new camera outright, and will add a lot more to your kit than a new camera will (depending on how old your cameras is). When you consider how important the standard zoom range is for photography, you could probably say that one of these lenses is the best investment for people that are transitioning from beginner to enthusiast. My 17-55mm lives on my #2 camera, and only comes off to put my 10-18mm on to take the wide shots that it can't.
Me, well I can't be missing focus so I go with the Canon for the best overall performance. I really wish Canon would make a version of that 18-35mm F1.8 though, along with the 50-100mm F1.8 as well. With the native Canon performance for AF they would rule the APS-C world!
Kevin Diaz suggest me canon 17-55mm or sigma 17-50 mm for canon 200d /SL2
Bikash Lakra Both work with your camera, so no worries there. I think it is a comparison between cost and accuracy. The Canon is the most accurate focus, and mine rarely misses. The Sigma is still pretty accurate, but probably 1 to 10 shots out of every 100 will either front or back focus just as a limitation of the third party lens. I think for most the Sigma works fine. If you can afford the Canon and need to reliably nail focus, then that is the best bet. If you can't really spend a lot on gear but want better low light with the versatility of a zoom that is also pretty sharp, the Sigma can perform well. Just be aware the USB dock is not compatible with the 17-50mm Sigma, so you won't be able to tune it should it be problematic. I use the Canon, but I cover events and sports so AF needs to be spot on.
Kevin Diaz thank u so much,, can you share the link where i can view your photography??
Right now all I have is an instagram, @kevin_diaz_infocus.
Clear distinction for all the 4 lenses Chris! Truly my short list among the four and eyeing to save up are the Sigma 17-50mm and the 18 -35mm "art" lens. Have read and heard that the 18-35 mm of Sigma tops most reviews, yet it now counts how my pocket power can sustain its cost. Thank you for sharing, well explained! Regards.
Thanks, Christopher. I had so many doubts about which lens to buy and I simply gave up saving money. It can not be done when the prices keep rising like they do around here. I just purchased the Sigma 17-50 mm f2.8 OS and I feel very confident about the results I going to get because of your reviews. I have to agree with Manjeet (bellow), you are by far the best lens reviewer I found. Keep up the great work. :)
Thank you friend. Very enlightening and helped me choose between 18-35mm (more expensive) and 17-50mm (cost / benefit). Almost bought the 18-35 but your video made me choose by 17-50. Greetings from Brazil.
I was racking my brains trying to figure out whether to buy the Sigma 17-50 or the Canon 17-55. This video was incredibly informative, well put together and allowed me to make an informed choice. A very well put together video, I echo what was said in the comments below; we appreciate the effort put into this video. Thanks!
Subscribed. I love when you're watching one of your videos, and you say to yourself, "Man, I would love to know more about THIS lens.." And when you look to the right, there's another one of your videos about that exact lens. 10/10. 100% would subscribe again.
Great review. I really appreciate seeing both tamron and sigma side by side as these are two possible options for me (a casual nikon user).
Comparing the Sigma 18-35 was a bit unfair. Personally I'd rather have Nikon standard zoom lens out there, but this would mean using nikon body and probably different image quality overall so I won't complain.
I really like your reviews, showing the same picture for each lens is a very good idea as it gives an opportunity to see the lens image quality, rather than photography skills (vs other reviews on youtube). You sir got a big like and subscribe. Keep it up !:)
Great review Christopher! I wish other people would review like this.
I had the Canon 17-55mm for a year. I loved it at first, but no matter how hard I tried to keep dust free, it was just a common flaw with this lens. Doesn't really affect image quality, but I didn't want my clients seeing so much dust in it when I was shooting them.
The weight of the glass always pulled my zoom out when I would shoot downwards. Not good when shooting video. I also needed that extra light that my 50mm 1.8 offered. Finally when zoomed all the way to 55mm the sharpness decreased. The sweet spot is around 28mm so I would often avoid zooming to 55mm.
I took the plunge and ordered the Sigma 18-35mm, but due to demand it has been back ordered. It should arrive in a few more weeks. I always shoot with a tripod our shoulder support so the lack of IS shouldn't be a problem.
I sold the pricey Canon 17-55mm, and will use my 50mm for my zoom and maybe get the 70-200mm or 85mm in the future.
By far the best lens comparison video I have ever seen .......
This video review made me decide to go for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS HSM. Perfect for my budget. Thank you very much, Christopher.
Thank you kindly for this highly informative comparison. You helped me choose the best value for money lens. I was looking at the Tamron earlier, but your videos made me realize that the Sigma is much much better.
I really appreciate your hard work. Dealing with 4 lenses is not easy at any time. Best wishes for you.
The best review of these lenses. Thank you for putting it together!
The best videos ever from all reviewers of the lenses !!!! Wish you make a video for the 70-200 2.8 canon and both tamron
Wow,this is really insane review, amazing!!! Just now I bought a sigma 18-35mm of second hand, I want to start with Video but my principal way is portrait and fashion photography and some street photography, for that I went for this lens.
Thanks for your time to check everything and make this video!
An updated version of this would be perfect!
What’s changed?
More of these have been released since the video was posted, 7 years ago
I just bought the sigma 17-55 on eBay and I don't think I will be disappointed! Thanks for the awesome video!
I think Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is great but not so universal as the others.. It's pretty hard to focus with f1.8 and is has only up to 35mm so it's not so good for portrait photography. On the other hand, it should be usefull in other types of photography.My opinion is that the best of this 4, is Sigma 17-50 f2.8 because it has bigger range, up to 50mm and aperature so good, that you don't even need more. Canon is pretty expensive compared to sigma. I'm definetelly choosing sigma 17-50mm f2.8.
Thank's christopher for this review, it helps a lot! :)
Excellent comparison! I'm drooling over the Canon, yet the Sigma 17-50 is a great alternative, especially now that the price has gone down a lot. It's even cheaper than the Tamron in my local photo store.
Thanks for this, Chris!
It was probably a lot of work to create this video, so I let you know that this video is so incredibly helpfull for me. At the moment I'm thinking about buying exaclty one of those 4 lenses and this is such a nice comparison.
For APS-C Cameras Sigma really has done a great job putting out high quality sharp lenses for their customers at an amazing value, I used the 18-35 1.8 during a wedding reception, I loved the quality, I did wish it had OS and had a lil trouble gaining focus in low light but when it did I was highly impressed. Overall, build quality and performance was delicious to say the least. I will be purchasing that one, I do also need a good lens that has OS so I may purchase both of the sigmas.
Though you have not planned to, I would sooo love to see you review the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 if you get the chance
Really great comparison after all these years, its still valid!
The real question is WHY you want to go for a bigger aperture, therfore does it really matter to have a smaller zoom-range, i don't think so, if zoom-range is a concern than go for a 18-250mm, taking into account its a compromise in EVERY focal length, and due to weight restrictions its also mediocre in every condition.
The Sigma has no IS, why should it have it, I have IBIS therefore EVERY lense i use is stabilzed, because its not the job done in lens but in the body.
The 18-35 is heavy, YES. Due to its zoom limitations its sharp and fast nearly as a prime lens, because it has to make less compromises.
If i go for a hike with less weight i take to WR-Zooms 18-135, 55-300 (and probably the 10-20), enough overlap in Zoom to have not every time the wrong one mounted, if i go for decent fotos with more equipment then the short zoom ranges don't bother me and i can choose the appropriate lense for every situation.
Very clear and organised, this was enjoyable to watch, thanks Chris!
Watching in 2022. 😊
Thanks for this..
I have Tamron 17-50MM best for video work.. And also I have Sigma 18-35mm best for photo.
Probably I should get sigma 17-50mm or either canon 17-55mm for video.. I need the stabilization.. I am disappointed about the sigma 18-35mm for video work but for photo is a monster sharp at f2.8, it's the sweet spot.
Really? 18-35 comes with RED kit. Can you tell more?
@@Sanatas66623 It's red and white dot..
It's so sharp for photos..
But for video, you need to buy a gimbal that handles its weight..
It's so heavy..
I have the lense already..
Sigma f1.8 18-35mm Art Lens
Sigma f2.8 17-50mm OS HSM
Tamron f2.8 17-50mm SP VC
Brilliant review Christopher 👌👍👏. I have always first read your reviews before buying any lens. Recently bought the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 lens featured here only after reading all your reviews on it. Its an amazing lens. I also feel that nowadays with so much competition between different lens manufacturers, almost all lenses fare neck to neck in performance. Thanks again for the review. Keep them coming 👍
Thanks for all the amazing work you do. Did you know your videos would be a amatuer photographers dream resource nearly a decade later? Going with the cannon since these days on the used market it is going for roughly the same price as the sigma 17-50. Though the cannon is still fetching a astounding $700 for a direct canon website refurb
Amazing review, covers all of the important stuff (often overlooked by other reviewers who only mention specs) in great depth. I'll definitely come back to your channel for other lens reviews!
the best lens comparison i'm ever saw