Anyone experience of the Sigma 18-125 vs Canon 17-85 IS USM

[Boss Hogg]

Need a slightly wider lens for general use than I have at the moment. Initially I was thinking of the 18-125, but now wondering whether I need it to go quite that long and whether the 17-85 would suffice for my needs. So just wondering how the quality of the two would compare and whether anyone has first hand knowledge of both.

Any opinions greatly received.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Well IS is awesome.

I Have the canon 28-135mm I have needed more wide a few times. I think trying to get wider than around 17mm is getting into a fisheye style lens. And they are pretty expensive.

Mikeeee

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I had both and sold the 17-85 IS. Horrendous colour abberation and vignetting at double the price of the Sigma 18-125.

 

[geetey]

I have the Canon 17-85 IS USM but not the Sigma 18-125 so I can't offer any comparisons. Not a pro so I haven't noticed the issues mentioned (or that I really understand what they are!), but there are times when I wish I had more length.

I am sure that doesn't help you though. Are there any specific examples you are looking for? I might be able to post some things for you.

 

[Boss Hogg]

Are there any specific examples you are looking for? I might be able to post some things for you.

Not really, I tend to use the camera most when in WDW, and at the moment have a 18-55, 28-80 and 75-300, but chopping and changing the first two is a real pain so wanted a "walk around" one to replace them both. As I said initially thinking of 18-125, but not sure whether I need the extra 40mm over the Canon, that's assuming the Canon was a better lens.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

nope, Canon is not the better lens. The Sigma is.
Second, yes, you need the additional zoom. Many timees even the 125 is not long enough.

 

[mhutchinson]

Without getting into a debate on which lens is better brand, I will give my two cents worth. I have had both the 17-85mm IS and the 28-135mm IS and of these two lenses the 28-135mm by far produced much better results for me. As a result it has been my favorite walk around lens. And just like Kelly, I dumped my 17-85mm as well.

I know that there are many on this site that love the Kelly lens (Sigma 18-125mm) and have nothing but praises for this lens (which has produced some great photos), I have never owned or used one. The lens offers a great range, same as the 28-135mm Canon except it goes 10mm wider and not as deep (by 10mm) as the Canon without having IS.

You mentioned that you wanted to go wider (I am assuming that is wider than the 28-80mm), but how wide do you need or want. For myself, I found 24mm is about as wide as I typically like to shoot, as I do not like the curvature created by the wider lenses. With that said, the 28-135mm fell a little short on the wide end so I picked up (at the time) a 24mm prime and the 20-35mm to supplement the wide shots.

You also said that changing the lenses was a pain (which it can be), which would put you right in line with the Sigma 18-125mm. This might even eliminate the changing of lenses as often on the 75-300mm range for some shots. BUT if you want to drop some serious money you could get the Canon 24-105mm L IS, which is another really nice walk around lens.

Mike

 

[Master Mason]

No experience with the Cannon lens, but in the week I have had the Sigma 18-125 I have been thrilled. I have the 18-55 lens that I used most often because my 75-300 wouldn't get wide enough for closer shots. Since I don't like to change lenses much, I would only use the 75-300 for sports events where I was far away from the action.

The Sigma is great because it covers a much larger range, and most important, my wife likes it better

 

[geetey]

Not really, I tend to use the camera most when in WDW, and at the moment have a 18-55, 28-80 and 75-300, but chopping and changing the first two is a real pain so wanted a "walk around" one to replace them both. As I said initially thinking of 18-125, but not sure whether I need the extra 40mm over the Canon, that's assuming the Canon was a better lens.

I would say that I noticed the lack of length more when I am trying to get some sport shots of my kids. While in WDW, I didn't notice it. Your 70-300 would work great for those long shots.

I keep reading the bad comments about the lens and then start thinking about trying to sell it... but what would I replace it with? I really do need IS (because of my MS). I don't have any good ways of trading a lens so I guess I am stuck. And like I said, I haven't noticed anything wrong (except user errors ) with my pics. I haven't loaded much up on photobucket, but I will send you a link when I do, if you are interested.

To those of you who have unloaded a lens, what method did you use? While I am comfortable with smaller purchases on ebay, I have never sold anything on it.

 

[Boss Hogg]

Thanks for the input guys. Reckon I am pretty made up on the 18-125 lens, partly down to price and partly down to the fact that I read as many bad things about the Canon as the Sigma. Seems that both suffer low down, as much as most lenses do, but the extra zoom I think would be of use.

BUT if you want to drop some serious money you could get the Canon 24-105mm L IS

Trying my best to avoid that happening

 

[mhutchinson]

Trying my best to avoid that happening

I was too and the next thing I know the FEDEX truck was in my driveway and I was trying to explain it to my DW.