Is the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 a worthwhile upgrade from the Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS on a Canon 400D?
Asked 10/5/2012
4 views
2 answers
0
I’m using a Canon 400D with the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II. It’s fine, but I don’t find it very inspiring, mainly in terms of image quality and overall performance.
I’m considering the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS HSM. Compared with the Canon kit lens, it offers a slightly wider field of view, a longer telephoto end, and a wider maximum aperture. Would those differences make a noticeable real-world improvement in image quality or usability?
In particular:
- How useful is the wider aperture in practice?
- Is the extra reach to 70mm a meaningful advantage?
- Would this be a worthwhile standard-zoom upgrade for general shooting on a 400D?
- Are there other standard zoom alternatives I should also consider?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
2
A wider lens (f/2.8 @ 17 mm vs f/3.5 at 18mm, f/4 vs f/5.6 at the tele end) can give you possibilities which you wouldn't have otherwise, in terms of depth of field and/or of bokeh (greater presence of roundly-shaped out-of-focus highlights). This can help your inspiration but it depends on the kind of shots that you are aiming for. Besides, you will be able to use the lens in situation with reduced light (like indoor). This applies more to the wide end of the lens (17mm) where distortion will be more pronounced: so keep it in mind if you plan to use this lens for indoor portraits without flash or other lightning gear.
The greater focal length, in the same way, can be used for tighter framing, which can be useful e.g. for portraits or, as this blog post shows, for a different take on landscape (but 70mm is probably a bit too short for that, in my experience).
So the Sigma lens obviously surely offers some capabilities that your current kit lens doesn't have or offer in the same amount. If it is worth a given amount of euros depends on your commitment to the hobby and to your satisfaction with the pics that you are able to take (or dissatisfaction with those that you are unable to).
Originally by user5032. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user5032
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes, it can be a meaningful upgrade, but mostly for versatility rather than a guaranteed dramatic jump in image quality.
Compared with the 18-55mm kit lens, the Sigma gives you:
- a wider maximum aperture, especially at the long end (f/4 vs f/5.6), which helps in lower light and allows shallower depth of field
- more reach to 70mm, useful for tighter framing such as portraits
- slightly wider coverage at 17mm
The wider aperture can make the lens feel more “inspiring” because it opens up more creative options with background blur and indoor shooting. That benefit is strongest if you often shoot in reduced light or want more subject separation.
Keep in mind that at the wide end, distortion can be more noticeable, so for indoor portraits or architecture you may need to be careful.
So: if you want a more flexible everyday zoom with better low-light usability and more framing options, the Sigma is worth considering. If your main goal is only sharper image quality, the improvement may not feel as dramatic as the price difference suggests.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS vs Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS as a walk-around lens for a Canon Rebel XTi
Is the Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM a good choice for full-body portraits and street photography?
Best first lens upgrade for a Canon 250D from the 18-55mm kit lens?
Canon EF-S 15-85mm plus 50mm f/1.8 vs EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 for a 550D
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC vs non-VC: is stabilization worth it, and are they upgrades over an 18-55mm kit lens?