Customer Reviews

Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 EX DC Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have a Canon 20D, and I have had these lenses:

Canon 50mm/1.8 (my reference standard for the best lens performance I can reasonably expect)

Canon 28-135 IS

Canon 28/2.8

Sigma 18-50/2.8

Canon 18-55 EFS

I have found that the Sigma 18-50/2.8 is the lens I keep on my camera most of the time. It has very good color, contrast, sharpness, saturation, and low distortion and aberration. By contrast to the 18-55 kit lens that came with my camera, the Sigma is in a whole different class. I would compare it favorably with my Canon 28/2.8 prime lens. I have never used a prime lens wider than 28mm, so I can't speak as to what the distortion is like at 18mm compared to a prime, but in general I am very pleased with the Sigma.

I find it has better dynamic range than the Canon 28-135 did; I can get better textures and ranges of intensity.

For the highest quality, I always go to my Canon 50/1.8, but in walking around and general shooting, I use the Sigma.

I was interested in the Canon 17-40L, but from what I have seen there is not a lot of difference in the quality from that lens and this one. Perhaps a little less distortion, but nothing you would notice unless you are taking pictures of brick walls.

This lens is soooo sharp. I returned a sigma 17-35mm EX DG HSM. The 17-35mm was a good lens with superb build. The 18-50mm f/2.8 is a great lens with good build. HSM would be nice and so would full time manual focus. Having said that. The focus is fast but not silent. However it is not loud either. And the auto focus is sharp, so I haven't had to use manual focus. It is so light that at first you think hey is the build cheap? No it isn't! It works well on my EOS 20D. If Sigma could make this lens 17-85mm they would sell a million of them. There is a lock for zoom creep but I never use it because there is no zoom creep. Oh yes the color and contrast are also great.

Image stabilization is the new hotness in lens design, but being an old-fashioned sort, I went on a search for a lens with a wide maximum aperture instead. Sure, IS and VR give you the ability to hand-hold week long exposures, but what if your subject is moving? Amazing what a difference that extra stop can make when you need to capture action in low light. Plus, the AF system works better, and the viewfinder is brighter.

Cost, however, is what drove me to this lens. Due to financial constraints, I could afford no more than $500 for a lens for my 300D, which knocked the Canon L-series glass out of contention. After looking at the Tokina and Sigma 28-70 F2.8 lenses, I discovered this lens was in the pipeline and held out for it.

It's not a replacement for the Canon L-Series lenses. That's the bad news. The good news is that this is possibly the PERFECT advanced amatuer lens. Good optical quality, though a little soft at F2.8. Focuses quickly, and "wanders" less than other EF-mount lenses I own (18-55mm EF-S kit lens; low-end Sigma 28-90). The wide aperture allows for auto focusing in what feel like "no light" situations.

Strengths:

Quick focus, little focus "wander", good build quality, included sunshade and case, relatively light weight and small size

Weaknesses:

Works only with APS-C image sensors, a little soft at F2.8

I am very happy with my purchase of this lens. I bought it to replace my Rebel XT's 18-55mm kit lens, and it compliments the camera very well. The greatest strength of this lens is its remarkable sharpness. Even 100% crops retain their quality. Shots are even acceptable at f2.8 (better than or equal to the kit lens at f8+), and past f8 the lens is stunningly sharp. I uploaded some shots and 100% crops to amazon in order to illustrate my point. The sharpness of this lens is easily comparable to Canon's 17-40, which says quite a lot.

The corners are not as sharp as the center, especially in wide angles. Outside of the center, the 18-50 is also prone to chromatic abberations/fringing but not worse than almost any other lense. Barrel distortion is present at 18mm but much better than the competition (ie, the 17-40L and 17-85 IS).

Color saturation is good- not as impressive as the Canon 17-40 but still perfectly adequate and very good with a slight software sharpening boost.

The only true negative I have found is a propensity for light lens flare. Even when the sun is out of frame by 20 degrees, flare can still occur. (note that this flaring is not major, and I have often not even noticed it until the second or third time I come back to a picture) I have also noticed flare from street lamps in 10+ second night shots. The lens comes with a decent hood (as well as a pretty nice soft case) in order to help prevent flares. However, I have noticed flaring in cases where the sun was so indirect I never would have thought to attach the hood. The lens cap also cannot be accessed while the hood is on, which is a frustrating design quirk. While, even in the best lenses, flare is not totally avoidable the 18-50 flares much more frequently than other lenses I have used. I don't know if this is an issue with the internal optics or the coatings used on the lens.

Even considering flare problems, I would buy this lens again without a second thought. Its only direct competitor in quality is the Canon 17-40L, which is more expensive, shorter in range, has a narrower max aperture and worse barrel distortion. I am extremely happy with almost every shot this lens generates, and its moderate price makes the 18-50 f2.8 a great companion for the Rebel XT.

I currently own this lens. It's a great all-purpose lens and I think it's very fresh even at 2.8. Razor sharp from f4-f11. Very comparable IQ to Canon L lenses. The only real differences are the Canon L's weather sealing and quieter/faster autofocus. Is the difference worth $700+ to you? This lens comes with me to every wedding I shoot. You tell me!

This Sigma is a nice everyday lens. It produces sharp & contrasty images, excellent build quality, fast AF, and smooth zooming. It's light and compact, making it easier to carry the camera around all day.

The 67mm filter thread is nice because the filter is cheaper than the newer 72mm macro (not really true macro) version. The AF sound is more audible than Canon USM, but far from noticeable with ambient noise, unless you are in a really quiet environment.

For the price, this is an excellent lens.

I so very much wanted to use this lens. I actually tried two of them here from Amazon. The first one simply could not autofocus on pretty much anything. If I manually focused the images were really very nice. Good sharp lens. The extreme corners are a bit soft and don't really sharpen up until about f/8. There is quite a bit of chromatic aberation at 18mm. The performance seems quite acceptable for a wide angle lens of this type. Unfortunately, since it could never really autofocus it wasn't very useful, so I exchanged it.

The second copy worked quite a bit better, optical performance just like the first and autofocused better. But it just could not autofocus on distant subjects at wider focal lengths (wider than 28mm). It had occasional trouble on near subjects. It was easy to verify it was the lens and not the camera as I had a Canon 18-55 and a Canon 17-40 to compare to. So this second copy got sent back for a refund.

This would be a five star lens if I had gotten one that worked. Great size and weight for what it does. Unfortunately Sigma appears to have some bad quality control problems. If you are going to give this lens a shot there is no better place to get it than here at amazon since the price is great and the exchange policy for defective goods is excellent.

As a professional wedding photographer I have owned many cameras and lenses. I've always chosen my equipment carefully, wanting both performance and value. Although I used primarily Nikon products, I have purchased several Sigma lenses over the years, mainly because they cost much less than Nikkor lenses. Unfortunately you get what you pay for. This year I've had two Sigma lenses fail. Both were less than three years old. The first had an autofocus problem. The second, an 18-50mm f2.8 EX, had an aperture failure. Since the warranties have expired I am now expected to shell out $180 to have each lens repaired.

I think a product which has been well maintained should last longer than three years.

I use this lens with a Canon D400 (Rebel XTi), and I'm pretty happy with the results. Most people would not be able to tell the difference between a picture taken with this lens or with a Canon L lense That said, the built quality is not as good as Canon L lenses.
For about half the price (or less), I strongly recommend this lens unless you are a pro and have the money to spend. In that case, go for the Canon 24-70 mm 2.8 (L) or the Canon 16-35 mm 2.8 (L).

I bought this lens with my Canon Rebel XTi. The default lens that came with the camera was very bad (EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6). I don't recommend it to anyone, it is really a waste of the camera's capabilities, and the pictures you get may not be as good as that from a point and shoot camera.

I am very happy with the Sigma lens. I love the f2.8 feature as it makes indoor pictures (w/o flash) much better. The pictures are pretty sharp in general (especially around the focus point). Beware that taking pictures at f2.8 can be tricky, i.e. while the image center is in focus, the edges and other more distant points may be not be (try increasing the f number if there is sufficient light).

There are three lenses in the market with comparable price & performance: Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC, Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD and Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Sigma is the cheapest and the other two are a bit more expensive.

I've just compared my Sigma with a friend's Canon today. The picture qualities were almost identical. Canon was a bit sharper due to Image Stabilization, but f2.8 in Sigma compansates for that. Overall, the picture qualities were very very similar. Canon has a slightly wider range of zoom, but I don't know if it worthy of $150 price delta. The barrel distortion at 18mm is noticeable with both cameras.

The reviews I read online indicate that Tamron and Sigma lenses are pretty similar, although the reviews for Tamron are a bit better. I haven't tested the Tamron yet.

I haven't had any focusing issues with the Sigma. It takes a while to get used to auto-focus function in Rebel cameras and perfect focusing is not 100% guaranteed. But that's true for any lens. You just need to learn how to do it.

I am aware of only one lens which is considerably better than the Sigma: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. That lens really rocks. Its colors are more saturated and it is sharper due to IS. However, it is _very_ expensive. If you cannot afford it, one of the three lenses above can be your choice. Sigma offers the best value among three, and it has pretty good performance.