Customer Reviews

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC SLD ELD Aspherical Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I own the best Canon 17-55 F/2.8, but it is also heavy and expensive for risky environments like windy beaches to packed clubhouses. I need an affordable F/2.8 backup, so I bought this Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 Macro. Having read many account of sigma lens front/back focusing, I have a very low expectation for my lens. Luckily, my fear proves to be unfounded, as my 18-50mm f/2.8 macro is free from rear/front focusing.

[ Biggest Surprise ] = Fast + Silent + Reliable focusing. Even without HSM/USM motor, the AF speed is fast & comparable to my canon 17-55 f/2.8 usm in dim light. Under the same setting, my tamron 17-50 f/2.8's banshee-like micro-motor scream loudly yet failed to find focus after 1 minutes.
+ The build quality is near "L", better than my expensive Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS
+ Size is very small compare to my gigantic canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS
+ Fantastic MACRO lens on the run

[Disappointment] 18mm F/2.8 "wide open" is softer than Tamron 17-50mm.
- Canon 17-55 f/2.8 @f/2.8 is sharper than sigma 18mm @f/5.6 (no joke!)
- Field of view is closer to 18.5mm or 19mm.

Since I had previously own the tamron 17-50 f/2.8, a canon 17-85is, and a canon 18-55is, here how they compare against one another:

...................................................[ Landscape Sharpness ]

[1] Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS__amazing sharpess even @f/2.8 wide open
[2] Canon 18-55 IS ______ sharp corners, mild barrel distortion + ca
[3] Tamron 17-50 f/2.8____sharp "when focused", problematic AF, field curvature
[4] Sigma 18-50 f/2.8_____softer wide open than tamron, 18mm behave like 19mm
[5] Canon 17-85 IS_______strong C_A + barrel distortion, soft corners

...................................................[ Bokeh / Out of Focused Highlight ]

[1] Sigma 18-50 f/2.8____ big round circular highlight, no cat's eyed footballs
[2] Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS__ some cat's eyed football highlight on the edge
[3] Tamron 17-50 f/2.8___ some visible double contours highlight
[4] Canon 17-85 IS______ small f/5.6, 85 has an edge over 55mm in highlight size
[5] Canon 18-55 IS ______ small f/5.6 = smallest highlight, boring photos

...................................................[ Construction Quality ]

[1] Sigma 18-50 f/2.8____ impressive build even at such a low price
[2] Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS__ [tied] build should have been better for a $1000 lens
[2] Canon 17-85 IS_______[tied] exactly the same build as 17-55 f/2.8 IS
[3] Tamron 17-50 f/2.8___ decent, plasticky, not as good as others above
[4] Canon 18-55 IS ______ plastic mount, front barrel rotate makes cpl difficult

...................................................[ AF Speed in Low Light + Reliability ]

[1] Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS__ USM + IS + F/2.8 = ultimate
[2] Canon 17-85 IS_______USM + IS, F/5.6 seem to focus just as fast as F/2.8
[3] Sigma 18-50 f/2.8____ Silent, Fast, and Decisive AF even in low light
[4] Canon 18-55 IS ______ silent image stabilization, but louder AF
[5] Tamron 17-50 f/2.8___ loudest motor, indecisive AF in low light

-------------------------------------[ in conclusion ]-------------------------

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro is jack-of-all-trade, master of none. While tamron is sharper @17mm f/2.8 than sigma is @18mm f/2.8 "when in focused", sigma has superior AF motor that is far more reliable under any circumstance. Sigma is a pleasure to use in real life ownership, free from fousing-worrying that plagued my tamron. Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is a combination between the reliable yet so-so IQ of canon 17-85is + tamron 17-50's superior IQ, but poor autofocusing mechanics. Highly Recommended!

$429.95 [Canon 17-85IS] poor 17mm IQ, but fantastic AF mechanic + IS
$443.41 [Tamron 17-50] great 17mm IQ, but poor AF mechanic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
$375.00 [Sigma 18-50mc] decent 18mm IQ + fantastic AF mechanic (no BUT)

Sigma did their homework. Sig18-50 retained good quality from its competitors while shredding the bad, yet it is offer at the lowest price. Competition is wonderful, I'm very happy with my purchased

Just another vote of confidence for this lens. (I posted this same review at another online retailer, but since I bought it from Amazon, I decided to post it here, too.)

After learning to love prime lenses, it was time to replace the underwhelming kit lens of my Rebel XT with better quality glass. I looked long and hard for a fast zoom that covered the wide-to-medium range despite the XT's crop factor, and finally settled on the Sigma.

Although I haven't laid my hands on the competition (including a similar 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S from Canon for more than *twice* as much, and the slower 17-40mm f4L), I don't regret my purchase at all. I was a bit wary at first about buying a non-Canon lens, especially after reading a few complaints online about bad samples, but the lens turned out to be just fine.

Edge-to-edge sharpness looks great to me, even wide open, and vignetting doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm not a professional, and don't own any L-series glass, but this is far more than I expected for the price.

The macro ability is also a nice bonus, as is the lens hood and case included in the package. I wouldn't call the lens "lightweight" (since I still prefer small primes when I don't need the versatility), but it's still a reasonable fit on the diminutive XT body.

I'm not crazy about the slight sparkle in the powder coat, but hey, that's hardly a complaint. All in all, I couldn't be happier!

Update: Four years later, I've upgraded to a Rebel T2i, and this is still one of my most trusted, go-to lenses!

At ~$600 less than the comparable Canon model, this lens is tough to beat! After several hundred shots, it's a keeper for me. I debated between this zoom range and 24-70mm, but found that 24mm was just not wide enough for my 1.6x crop Rebel XT, especially for crowded rooms and landscapes. 50mm (80mm FF equivalent) has been fine for most portraits and that zoom combined with large aperature produces nice bokeh. F2.8 makes it terrific for existing light use, though I do still find my 430EX flash necessary sometimes. I find the lens to have good sharpness at f2.8 throughout the zoom range, and at f4.0 and above it's very sharp. Colors are great. I have had no trouble with flare, or fringing, though I haven't pushed it hard in this respect. Sigma seems to have corrected the flare and CA issues with the first version of this lens. Though it's not a true 1:1 macro, I have found the macro function very useful and lots of fun. That said, the extremely small depth of field with f2.8 and macro has exposed my need for a good tripod! Build quality seems to be very good; zoom and focus are well damped. Autofocus seems accurate to me while being fast and quiet. Highly recommended.

[...]

I went through two copies of this lens. The first copy had a front-focus problem approaching 20mm. I sent sample shots to Sigma, and they directed me to simply return the lens to Amazon rather than have it serviced. So, I exchanged it (big points to Amazon for making that so easy!), and the second copy front-focussed by approximately 8mm. That's not nearly as bad, of course, but for close-up photography, it meant few keepers. (I bought this lens for the macro capabilities, as I intended to use it in restaurants, taking pictures of my plate without moving away from the table.) The focus problem was in both my Canon XTi and my Canon 40D. None of my Canon lenses have any focus problems whatsoever; this issue was limited to the Sigma lens.

I sent the lens to Sigma for service, and three weeks later, received my lens back in even worse condition than it started. It still front-focusses by 8mm, and now, even what is "in focus" is much softer than before. I contacted Sigma repeatedly to ask them what I should do, and they ignored my emails.

I have seen many good shots from this lens from people who had good copies. When I shot at f/5.6 or above, I would catch my intended focus point (since the depth of field was increased), but that made shots in lower-light too blurry due to the slower shutter speeds.

This lens can be very good -- if you get a good copy from the start. If you read comments on the photography forums, you'll see story after story of quality control problems from Sigma, and the need for repeated service attempts before a lens will be correctly calibrated. (Several people even report having to send the lens WITH their camera body so the lens could be matched -- even though their camera was correctly calibrated to Canon spec -- being without their camera entirely for several weeks.) If you luck out with a good copy (which is not as likely as it should be), you'll enjoy the lens. If you don't, return it immediately rather than dealing with Sigma service.

The price is low, but the risk is high.

I bought this lens from Adorama through Amazon about a month ago, and have been using it for 5-20 assignments per week. I shoot for a 25,000-circulation newspaper in the midwest, and typically use either this lense or a canon 70-200 2.8L on a 20D that I've owned for about a year.

The glass is nice, with no apparent abberations. The zoom action is smooth, if mildly stiff. The autofocus is dependable in most lighting situations. The hood that comes with the lens is adequate for blocking out most refracted light. At 18mm, there is no noticeable barrel-distortion, as is common with the Sigma 17-35mm 2.8-4 I used to use.

The primary drawback is the 1.4x conversion of the 20D. On this camera (and any other that doesn't have a full-frame sensor), 18mm is really more like 28mm. This is not the fault of the lens, BUT, if I were to use this lens on a 5D, or anything with a full-frame, I'd be getting vinetting at the corners. Such is life.

The lens is solid, and the macro function is wonderful. Canon sells a real piece-of-crap 50mm f1.8 for $60 that feels like it was made out of balsa wood (my cat recently sent it plunging to a tragic death from a table top). You're better off with this lens--it will give you a nice wide-to-mid zoom, a narrow depth-of field, and the macro will let you do the portrait work that you were probably thinking of doing with the 50/1.8.

Yes, the Canon version of this lens is assuredly nicer, at only two to three times the cost. But just like "every guitar is 90 percent player," every camera is 90 percent shooter. Unless you're using a 5D or better, the canon lens is just overkill. This was an excellent buy for me, and I'm pleased with the product.

I have used this lens over a year and the only time I pull out the MUCH bulkier Canon 24-70L F2.8 is if I think I really need a little more reach than the 18-50 provides. The only downside is that its only for 1.6x multipler canon DSLR's, so think about what your future needs will be (such as full frame body purchase) because you can't use this lens then. Pictures have excellent sharpness and focusing is fast and fairly quiet. Pop Photo did a review of this lens in 2005 and received kudo's (it was $500 when I bought it). Although its much lighter than the 24-70L, it still feels well built. I use a filter adapter (no vignetting) to allow use of 77mm filters, which all of mine are.

This is my first non canon lens and im complety surprised... The lens is really sharp from begining to end, its really well built (its a diamond compared to the 18-55 kit lens of any canon), i think is even better builded that my 28-135 IS. Im loving this lens, the only drawback is the macro, dont buy this lens for macro work, the macro function is just a "bonus" that can save you in particular situations... this lens has become the lens that stays in the camera 90% of the time.

I bought this lens based on other reviews and Popular Photography's in depth testing. Everyone had all good things to say.

Popular Photography said "...shooters who like to reach out from the camera position to reposition or otherwise manipulate their subject, this 1:3 macro is probably the closest focusing lens in its class. In all, it's a stellar performer, and significantly better by virtually all optical benchmarks than its predecessor, or, for that matter, competitors such as Nikon's comparable 17-55mm f/2.8 ..." at $1,200+ dollars.

I've used the lens for a few weeks now on both a Canon 40D and an XTi and find the lens comfortable to work with, easy to operate and have gotten great pix. While there's no IS, at f-2.8 you rarly would need it. Is it as good as Canon's "L" series? No, but damn close for almost every kind of work. Much lighter than Canon's "L" series so it's easy to carry. The picture quality I found to be outstanding thru the full range. (see my pix of the Sacramento RR Museum, under "see customer images, above)

I recommend this lens as a 'walk-about' lens, indoors or outdoors.

Feb-2008 Update:

So satisfied with this lens I bought a second copy as a gift for my sister.

This is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. It's sharp wide open very sharp when stopped down to f/4 or more. It's very well built. Although heavier and larger than the 18-55mm kit lens it's not a burden to carry.

It will focus very close. To get the closest focus you are almost touching the subject with the lens so it's hard to keep from blocking the light.Focusing is accurate in decent light but sometimes hunts in lower light. It's not silent like Canon USM lenses but not loud in my opinion. Focus is also not as fast as a USM lens. The strength of this lens is it's optical quality, build quality and constant 2.8 aperture, and in my opinion is one of the best values for a lens of this type.

A very good value for the modest investment. My copy is not without an issue however. I was hoping for uniform edge to edge sharpness throughout the 18mm image with my Canon 30D. Unfortunately at 18mm it is not usable at f2.8 to f5.6 without considerable edge blurring within 10-15% of the image border. This influence is all around the image and represents a large percentage of the overall image. I will avoid this f stop range at 18mm. If others have seen this, I've not seen any reviews to reflect this. This is my first "digital" lens and wonder if many of this type lens exhibit this behavior. Other lenses I have (Canon 70-200mm f4 L and Canon 28-135mm f4-5.6 IS) are "full frame" and I've not seen any of this. Other than the edge blur at 18mm below f5.6, overall it performs very well. The focus is not USM, however focusing is accurate and quiet. The petal lens hood with this lens is like my Canon's hood and provides no option to index the hood 90 degrees for portrait orientation sun protection. There is a small vignetting at 18mm, but would be fine at any focal length longer than 18mm. I guess I'll have to carry a piece of cardboard for glare issues.

Update November, 2007

On returning from a 3 week trip to Europe this month, I can say this lens performed flawlessly and was the only lens I had on the trip. Although the 50mm long end was somewhat short, overall it was a good performer for interior and exterior scenes. The f2.8 for dark interiors, museums and ancient cathedrals is great, as I had limited luggage room for a mono or tripod. The weather cooperated in the lenses favor with out sun for most of the trip, so flair was a non issue.

Full frame update:

I tried this lens on my 5D MK2 and it vignettes which was no supprise, however the vignette occurs through out the zoom range.