Sigma 18-200 OS v Canon 17-55 IS v Canon 24-105 IS Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Sigma 18-200 OS v Canon 17-55 IS v Canon 24-105 IS

Nov 9 2007

Sigma 18-200 F3.5-6.3 DC OS [$549 B&H, Hood included]
Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS USM [$999 B&H, Hood not included]
Canon 24-105 F4 L IS USM [$1059 B&H, Hood included]

Test Notes: Canon 20D [APS-C sensor] used for this test. All captures were tripod-mounted with wired shutter release and in JPG format [large/fine], Parameter 2. With ALL the crops, the 17-55 is designated by "EFS", the 24-105 by "L", and the 18-200 by "OS". The OS tends to consistently underexpose any given scene by 1/3 stop, so you may notice this in some of the crops. View the actual tests for my specific comments on each lens' performance.

Handling Notes: The IS/OS units in these lenses are excellent. The IS from the Canon lenses seem to be identical functionally. The OS on the Sigma is at least as effective, but is less refined and more "jumpy" upon start-up; it also makes a wee-bit more noise. However, once the unit settles in (takes about 1 second), it might be the most effective one of them all. But they are all excellent in use. As for build and handling, I like the L, then the OS, then the EFS. This is not to say that the EFS is cheaply built or that it can't take some hard usage, but "in-hand", the other two just feel better. The L is no doubt the class leader here. And as to AF speed and noise, both the L and EFS are top-grade: extremely quick, almost noise-free, and accurate to AF. The OS lens uses a mechanical drive (as opposed to a ring-type unit), so it does make some noise and is slower to focus, though in practice the focus throw is quite short (about 60 degrees) so it actually achieves AF quite quickly. Accuracy with the OS lens is very good throughout the focal range.

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

01	02	03	04
05	06	Bonus Picture	Main Tests

comment |

lightrules		07-Dec-2008 18:13
While I don't have the 24-105 IS currently, IMO having used them both at one time, the L is going to be the stronger performer in its focal range but will not match the 18270 when you add a 1.4x to the L. Again, every lens choice is a compromise of some sort. Now choose where you will give and take!

SoundsGood		07-Dec-2008 17:37
lightrules, since I see you've compared the Canon 24-105 to the Sigma 18-200... how would you now compare the Canon 24-105 to the Tamron 18-270? Thanks.

Christos K.		18-Sep-2008 13:16
I am really thinking on buying the 17-55 IS but is it really that big of a lens, gees come on that is the only thing stopping me from buying it, look how much bigger it looks to the Sigma 18-200.

lightrules		26-Aug-2008 17:06
Som, I am a "fan" of the 24-105 IS, even though I am aware that many don't think it's a very good optic. I think, overall, you'll find the IQ comparable to your 28-75, though I would probably give a slight edge in sharpness to the Tamron. But it's not a significant point. The Canon 24-105 obviously has its perks: build, ring AF, FTM, IS, great focal coverage, etc. If you don't feel like you have to have the f2.8 speed, I'd say it's a nice upgrade. Take care.

Som		26-Aug-2008 16:15
Hello Lightrules, Thanks once again for you tests.. I have the 18-200 OS, happy with it. However, the Tarmron 28-75 2.8, beats it by a long way as far as the IQ goes. The Tamron 28-75 is my favourite walkaround lens, while the 18-200OS is mybest travel lens. I am considering replacing the 28-75 with EF 24-105, because of the xtra reach. How did you find the IQ of 24-105? I know it is f4, but if I get the IQ of the Tamron, I own, I would be very happy. Look forward to your comments.

D. Welch		18-Jun-2008 01:23
Hi, Ran across your pbase. I own and love the 18-200 OS. It isn't as sharp as any prime however as you already stated for a walk around lens it has to be at the top. I have tried several differents lenses and rented the $2400 28-300 from canon. I cannot find a better one lens than the 18-200OS. Check out my pbase I have several different photos with this lens. Keep up the stellar work. D.

lightrules		13-Feb-2008 06:51
Som, I have not used the Tamron lenses you list here, but if you don't need (or care much about) the 18-28mm range, I would definitely look at the 28-300 VC. It should be a very nice travel lens (so long as you really don't care about the wider end of things).

Som		13-Feb-2008 03:30
Hi, How do u compare these lenses? I have 10-22 Canon, and I am not really keen about the Focal lenghts from 18-28.., but more interested in the longer end. Is the extra reach of 28-300 worth it? Tamron 28-300 VC Tamron 18-250 Sigma 18-200 OS

lightrules		10-Nov-2007 00:04
To be honest, there are two lenses that have kept me with APS-C: Sigma 30 and Canon 1755. They really are that good. But, of course, I know the perks of FF and that may be in the future for me some day. Thanks for the comments.

kevindar		09-Nov-2007 23:46
Lightrule, you are making it that much more difficult for me to part with my 17-55. Now you need to buy a full frame also, so I can follow your tests on a full frame sensor.

PJ		05-Nov-2007 18:51
Awesome, this is just the comparison I've been waiting for. Just got rid of my 24-105 and wondering whether to get the sigma or the 17-55. I may even end up getting another 24-105 if your tests produce better results than mine was getting

click on thumbnails for full image