Not perfect, but vs. an upgrade. the kit lens (18-55)

The difference in the sharpness fall - perhaps for one or the other surprise - not great and certainly not clearly in favor of the Sigma !! It's just gotten so that the new 18-55er are just damn sharp - that can read well enough, if you do not believe it. As for the price-performance ratio, the kit is therefore with his charge of under 100, - EUR always win.

The colors are the Sigma warmer and slightly higher contrast, what stands out positively. It has an ultrasonic motor, however, but only the slower version without FTM. The feel is the kit miles ahead. However, the question arises whether the (certainly again attractive compared to other lenses) can justify the price. Especially since you regard with appropriate post-processing also. Colours and contrast can much rausholen from the kit lens! The AF in Kitobjektiv is also quite fast that it is not a USM / HSM.

Although the additional focal length is below and above noticeable, but not so much as about the 15-85 or 18-135 eg

The additional flexibility in the panel (2/3 at the bottom, 1 at the top end) seems quite nice at first glance, but is relative, at least in my copy insofar quickly than the sharpness at maximum aperture but rather poor and definitely worse than the is Kitobjektiv with corresponding maximum aperture.

I am currently still difficult to consider whether I look at the nearly 400, - EUR to save and send back the part. Especially since it seems to be the bottom right extreme blur. So much for the supposed better quality control of Sigma.

Who gets a good specimen, certainly does nothing wrong. I'm also only ever come up with the idea to bring me the Sigma because it according to many tests can certainly compete with the far more expensive 15-85 .. therefore very good models of this objective must actually be in circulation.

---

Update: After some consideration, I will keep the lens or just exchange. Ultimately the focus for my claims is sufficient, as has been demonstrated in a comparison with the EF 50mm 1.8 II - I've obviously only a damn sharp 18-55 IS II offers a For the Sigma not huge, but quite noticeably more practical one. focal length range than the 18-55. Just the 55mm I felt often to be too short. With 70mm and f4 can also already exempt pretty neat; assuming the same distance to the object produced 70mm @ f4 less depth of field than [email protected] - Often can not or will not you get closer to the object, so here is a 17-50 2.8 would not necessarily an advantage. The Sigma also has a pleasing bokeh and is therefore also in this respect as a portrait lens is not suitable. To that we the ordinary maximum magnification ratio of 1: 2.9. Coupled with the aperture has one win so - if one disregards the pixel peepen of 100% -Crops in the corners - in every field, a noticeable increase over the 18-55 IS II The Sigma is flexible and opens up more applications -. And that's what would expect from a "Always top" or standard zoom. For this it is really well finished and looks chic :-)

As the Sigma 17-50 is 2.8 become damn cheap and currently 50, - costs EUR less than the 17-70 C, it is certainly an interesting possibility. It is supposed to better reflect. For me personally, the continuous panel, however not so important - I would not so much the low light-, but rather irritate the DoF-potential, but this is not necessarily greater than the 17-70 C (see above) - and the 20mm longer at long end would fail me in any case.

The oft-mentioned blur at 17mm and maximum aperture so I can not confirm the way! Now I have not tested it in the lab, but I find the sharpness quite adequate - this was again a reason to keep the lens (and not to bring it about that 17-50 2.8).