Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 IS USM v Sigma 18-200 F3.5-6.3 OS DC Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 IS USM v Sigma 18-200 F3.5-6.3 OS DC

Jul 26 2007

Canon 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM [$515 B&H, no hood included]
Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 OS DC [$549 B&H, includes hood]

Resolution (wide-center): S10, C8
Resolution (wide-edge): S10, C8
Resolution (tele-center): C10, S8
Resolution (tele-edge): C10, S8
Contrast/Color: TIE
Light Fall-Off: S10, C9
Distortion (barrel): TIE
Distortion (pincushion): C10, S9
Flare: TIE
CA: S10, C7
Bokeh: TIE
Build: S10, C7
Handling: S10, C8
Aperture (speed): S10, C8
AF (noise): C10, S7
AF (speed): C10, S8
AF (lowlight): C10, S9
Stabilization: S10, C9
Focal Range: S10, C6
MFD & Magnification: S10, C8
10D/D60/D30 Compatible: S Yes, C No
Bang for Buck: S10, C8

18-200 OS Focal Length to Aperture:
18mm f3.5
20mm f4
30mm f4.5
50mm f5
80mm f5.6
140mm f6.3

17-85 IS Focal Length to Aperture:
17mm f4
24mm f4.5
35mm f5
45mm f5.6

The Lenses

Focal Range and FOV

Main Tests

comment |

Christos K.		20-Jul-2008 07:03
Well those images were crops, but the only trouble i have is in AF where the pictures are blurry, but when in Manual images are right on par with the 17-85 and from what i saw at 200mm it has better color than the 70-300 IS, i think it is a wonderful lens i only hope i can get it fixed, because i do think it has a AF problem, as to where my 17-85 70-300 10-22 and 50 1.8 never have AF problems;)

lightrules		19-Jul-2008 21:17
Hard to tell where the focus point is for this kind of scene. Lots going on there. And the 400D's AF design isn't going to help. Bottom line is this: Is the lens delivering good images for you in your day-to-day shots? How about prints?

Christos K.		19-Jul-2008 20:40
Again very sory for posting those pictures i thought i put the direct link the the one in the middle.

lightrules		19-Jul-2008 20:09
Hercules, if you know for sure you are having an AF issue, then you should send it to Sigma for a check-up. Maybe show them (on a CD) the differences you are getting between AF and MF. Let me know how it turns out.

Christos K.		19-Jul-2008 15:46
Hi Lightrules, i sent you some crop pictures last week from the 17-85 and 18-200, well my 18-200 was just to soft, but i think i found the problem if it is one, today i tried a couple tests and in auto focus is where the problem is, when i manual focus i get great results but not in auto, i am just wondering what kind of problem this would be? my camera is the 400D, thanks.

lightrules		03-Jan-2008 20:45
When the 1785 came out a few years ago, it was a great walkaround lens for APS-C. The 1755 IS was not out yet, and of course, Sigma's 18-200 OS was not available either. But now with the release of these newer APS-C lenses, I find the 1785 between a rock and a hard place, so to speak. It doesn't offer any significant perks over the new 18-200 OS, yet it doesn't compete optically with the 1755 IS. I just think if you are going to choose a variable aperture zoom lens, you might as well go with one that has a massive focal range and still delivers nice optics (the 18-200 OS). If you want optimum image quality, then the 1755 IS is your choice but you give up a lot of money and lots of coverage. I have both the 1755 IS and 18-200 OS and use them in different situations, but I really like the OS lens more and more. Best wishes with your decision.

engrmariano		03-Jan-2008 19:41
Hi LR, currently i have the C17-85IS as a kit lens for my XTi. Is worth selling it to give way to S18-200OS?

lightrules		11-Sep-2007 19:58
It's actually only for Nikon mount http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/digital/18_200_35_63_os.htm

xing		11-Sep-2007 19:50
I just noticed that the HSM version is released : http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/lens/digital/18_200_35_63_os.htm for C/N/S mount.

lightrules		31-Jul-2007 22:22
Michal, printing A4 should be no problem with your XTi. Going to A3 you might seem some of the optical compromises, especially in the mid-range focal lengths. But my opinion is that you would still be good even at A3. It really is a handy lens that offers good optics, great stabilization, and tremendous focal range.

Michal		31-Jul-2007 18:11
Hi Lightrules, thanks for posting the review of the new OS. It seems from it that the lens is really good at the wide end and also not bad at the long end. I am seriously thinking of buying it, it is so comfortable to travel just with one lens. Do you have any experience with prints from this lens? Or would you be able to asses very roughly how large you can go with it? I know there are more factors to that (sw sharpening, view distance, etc.) but do you think it would be good enough for A4 or larger sizes with the XTi? Thanks again for the review.

lightrules		30-Jul-2007 23:32
Greetings Kevin. Well, you sure didn't skimp going with the 1755 --- hard to better that. It looks like we have similar set ups. Enjoy and keep shooting.

kevindar		30-Jul-2007 23:09
Hi Lightrules. Kevindar here. Like always, appreciate your in depth and what I have generally found to be very accurate assessment. My experience with the sigma 30 1.4, and 10-20, has paralleled your descriptions. I just bought the 17-55, and sold my trusty 17-85 lens, after I read your initial reviews. I figured that if I ever miss the range, I may be better off with the 18-200 os as a walk around lens.

lightrules		27-Jul-2007 17:04
xing, I wouldn't hold your breath for an HSM version; it's not coming any time soon. But this non-HSM lens is actually quite good still with AF. It shouldn't deter you from at least trying it out.

xing		27-Jul-2007 16:47
Nice job! hope Sigma will put HSM into this lens just like they just did to 17-70/18-50... or i'll wait Canon's 18-200 EF-S IS USM.:)

lightrules		27-Jul-2007 15:00
I've already posted some crops here http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/sigma18200os . But they aren't really comparable lenses, so please take note.

Guest		27-Jul-2007 10:51
PLEASE, PLEASE compare the 18-200 against the 70-200 F/2.8 and F/4. I would sell my first born ;)

lightrules		27-Jul-2007 03:18
Hello "derekl", I'm not surprised to see you here and posting so quickly. You should know my preference is that you not post "incognito" and anonymous (i.e., as "guest") but that you actually post a name with a link, especially if you are going to post the kinds of unwarranted comments that you've done here. Anyway, regarding your comments, first of all, your statement that I'm "subjective" is subjective too. Second, it seems quite "subjective" to say someone has to use a lens "for more than three years or so" before they can comment --- that's tremendously irrational and ridiculous. Concerning build, I am speaking of build-feel mostly. I know both lenses well and so I'm posting my assessment on them. You are welcome to disagree. But please spare me the irrationalities.

Guest		27-Jul-2007 02:05
very subjective , epecially the build quality issue . unless you use bothe for more than 3 years or so , you can not talk about their build quality difference . I dropped my 10-22, Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 17-50 from my car while driving down a free way , only the Sigma broke . That tells you something the lighter the less tough kind of opinion is wrong . The mosre elastic a lens is the better build it is IMHO. Better not comment on build of lenses or handling since you dont know it , you can say you prefer Sigma handling or build better , but it is not better in absolute term .

lightrules		26-Jul-2007 23:28
Hi Erez, I've got so many (read: countless) shots and crops it's crazy. I've looked fairly closely at most of them. I want to make sure I get accurate findings between these lenses. Both copies focus very well, so that's a plus. Regarding IQ, the summary is this: the Sigma is the MUCH better performer at the wide end (18mm-40mm) and the Canon is the MUCH better lens from about 50mm-85mm. They are relatively similar around 45mm. Of course, the Sigma is infinitely better from 85mm and on ;-) Overall edge performance is better on the Canon (though the Sigma is stronger here at the wide end). Contrast is similar. The Sigma performs much better concerning CA. Things such as bokeh, distortions, light fall-off, flare, and IS proficiency are fairly equal. Of course the ring USM and FTM of the Canon is nicer, but AF is quick enough with the Sigma as its focus throw is relatively short. Build is significantly better with the OS lens with the Canon feeling flimsy in comparison. The focus ring on the Canon is also very tiny whereas both zoom and focus rings on the Sigma are good, grippy, and large. Well, I guess I can now simply cut and paste this summary for my future comments :-) All things considered, I would take the Sigma without any reservations over the Canon for its 11x range and significantly better build. With the release of this OS lens, Canon really needs to make a counterpart, something like an 18-200 EF-S IS USM.

Erez Katz		25-Jul-2007 22:56
Hi Jojo, I was planning to go buy the 18-200OS tomorrow (I have a company fun day soon, and want to go with just one lens..).. could you hint how these two compare ? Thanks. Erez

click on thumbnails for full image