[Klaus]

[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os"]http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os[/url]



Quite impressive actually.



FWIW, this lens was purchased just for these tests and is now available for sale (540EUR + shipping).

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' date='01 July 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1278016326' post='791']

[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os"]http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os[/url]



Quite impressive actually.



FWIW, this lens was purchased just for these tests and is now available for sale (540EUR + shipping).

[/quote]



In the conclusion you state it is best in class; does this mean you think it out performs the canon 17-55? (It is less expensive but lack IS and FTM; not sure if it is better built).

[Klaus]

[quote name='you2' date='01 July 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1278016813' post='792']

In the conclusion you state it is best in class; does this mean you think it out performs the canon 17-55? (It is less expensive but lack IS and FTM; not sure if it is better built).

[/quote]



Where do I state that ?

" starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS"

So obviously it does not beat it at f/2.8.



And the Sigma has an IS (OS) of course. The build quality is "different" compared to the Canon - more "tight" but less sophisticated.

[Guest]

My fault -- read "Sigma's best product in this class so far." as "best product in this class so far ". Please forgive me.



I should take a nap.



[quote name='Klaus' date='01 July 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1278017513' post='793']

Where do I state that ?

" starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS"

So obviously it does not beat it at f/2.8.



And the Sigma has an IS (OS) of course. The build quality is "different" compared to the Canon - more "tight" but less sophisticated.

[/quote]

[miro]

Thanks for the nice review.

I’m happy that I this review is included some AF properties like – rotating angle, MF focus capability etc.



Klaus what is your experience with this lens. How it compares to the old Tamron 17-50/2,8.

[Klaus]

[quote name='miro' date='02 July 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1278055383' post='797']

Thanks for the nice review.

I’m happy that I this review is included some AF properties like – rotating angle, MF focus capability etc.



Klaus what is your experience with this lens. How it compares to the old Tamron 17-50/2,8.

[/quote]



The old Tamron had some hefty field curvature issues so despite the better chart figures at 17mm @ f/2.8 there's no real world advantage for the Tammy at this setting. I think the Sigma is better at 17mm f/4 and the Tammy requires f/5.6 to catch up again. The Tammy has more CAs so its subjective quality perception may be somewhat lower as well here (unless you correct the issue). The Tammy has a tad less barrel distortion at 17mm.

Personally I'm not a fan of the Tamron build quality nor style - Sigma is better here. However, the Tammy non-VC is a lot cheaper.



So they're darn close - just like their ratings indicate. :-)

[Guest]

Surely a very nice lens, soft corner at f2.8 isn't really field relevant, I mean who shoot 2.8 to in order to get everything sharp?

[Guest]

Where are border and extreme exactly in the frame?

[mst]

[quote name='Rasho' date='02 July 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1278067487' post='802']

Where are border and extreme exactly in the frame?

[/quote]



There's an illustration in our Lens Test FAQ:



http://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/lens-test-faq



-- Markus

[Guest]

Aha, I figured that extreme borders are mostly irrelevant, zhat can-t be said for borders