Just curious.... in your opinion, what does the Canon 17-55 2.8 offer you that you don't already have with the Sigma 18-50 2.8? Is it just the IS or is there more to it?
I have the Canon 17-85 IS. I do wish it was a 2.8 lens - that is the primary reason I don't use it very much. Instead I use the Canon 24-70 2.8 a whole lot more, primarily for the 2.8 aperture. The IS on the 17-85 really doesn't buy me much of anything because at those focal lengths, I can pretty much hand-hold any exposure with or without IS.
Just curious.... in your opinion, what does the Canon 17-55 2.8 offer you that you don't already have with the Sigma 18-50 2.8? Is it just the IS or is there more to it?
I have the Canon 17-85 IS. I do wish it was a 2.8 lens - that is the primary reason I don't use it very much. Instead I use the Canon 24-70 2.8 a whole lot more, primarily for the 2.8 aperture. The IS on the 17-85 really doesn't buy me much of anything because at those focal lengths, I can pretty much hand-hold any exposure with or without IS.
That was my thought, then I bough the canon 10-22 (my most expensive lens to date and second most expensive single thing i've bought after the 30D)
I've been using the sigma 18-50 for 18 or 20 months now. I know this lens, and it's shortcomings. For it's price class it's a good lens.
the 17-55 IS...usm is one benefit (faster better focus you can tweak) and the IS...I handlheld at 55mm a 1/4 second shot and got a sharp image. On my sigma I might, maybe, get that at 1/30. 1/4 is 3 stops slower and that is a significant difference IMO. And I'd bet the image quality is better - will that matter most of the time? No, but if it makes all my images even 2% or 5% better than my competition's then I get more work and make more money.
I'll have to see how my xmas pet season goes this month. If I can pull in more than $1500 I may do the upgrade.
Yeah, buy it man.
It's sure to make you a much better photographer.
it will allow me to get images i can't get now, or to shoot at a lower ISO so the images I get look better. It should also give me more in-focus shots for more keepers, sharper shots for better enlargement.
Just curious.... in your opinion, what does the Canon 17-55 2.8 offer you that you don't already have with the Sigma 18-50 2.8? Is it just the IS or is there more to it?
I have the Canon 17-85 IS. I do wish it was a 2.8 lens - that is the primary reason I don't use it very much. Instead I use the Canon 24-70 2.8 a whole lot more, primarily for the 2.8 aperture. The IS on the 17-85 really doesn't buy me much of anything because at those focal lengths, I can pretty much hand-hold any exposure with or without IS.
dwterry - keep in mind that the 17-55 2.8 IS is an EF-S lens. It will not work on the 5D. The 20D and the 300D will work with it.'
Yeah, buy it man.
It's sure to make you a much better photographer.
it will allow me to get images i can't get now, or to shoot at a lower ISO so the images I get look better. It should also give me more in-focus shots for more keepers, sharper shots for better enlargement.
Sometimes you need greater DOF, and you're shooting at f/4 or f/5.6 or so even if you have a faster lens. That's where IS helps. (Think of a school play or similar--poorly lit stage, kids all over the place, you can't move too far from your seat....)
