Posts
The fact that I like my MAC 217 more than my Sigma SS217 doesn't mean it's because the Sigma SS217 is lacking in quality or anything of that sort, it's just not as similar to the MAC 217 as I'd like it to be.
These two brushes are VERY similar in many ways, BUT there is a slight difference. There's only one SLIGHT difference between the two brushes, but the slight difference in bristle cut between the two does significantly change the way the two brushes function.
As shown in the picture, the MAC 217's bristles are cut so that the tip is more evened out/flat and tapers out only ever so slightly around the edges. The Sigma SS217 is cut so that it tapers much more drastically into a more refined tip.
I prefer the MAC one because the bristles are flatter on the tip and it gives you a stiffer/denser feel which makes blending a breeze. The MAC 217 also gives you more control since there's not too much play (looseness) in the bristles, and it allows you to blend quicker since more of the bristles are being used (covers more area & uses it's density to it's advantage) when blending with the tip of the brush.
The Sigma SS217 uses the same type of bristles as the MAC one, and the feel of the bristles are almost identical. It does have just as many hairs (denseness) as the MAC one, but the fact that it tapers so much more than the MAC one at the tip means that less hairs are being used (coming into contact) when using the tip of the brush to blend out harsh lines. This makes the brush feel too loose and flimsy even though it IS densely packed. This small detail actually does make a noticeable difference in performance. This brush can give a similar result as the MAC one, but it does take longer, and also it takes more work to achieve a nicely blended result.
I think if Sigma cut the bristles of the SS217 to look, work, and feel more similar to the MAC 217's they'd have a winner! They just need to make it so that the cut of the bristles results in a flatter and less tapered top, in order to make it as effective and functional as the MAC one. That's all they'd really have to change to make it an unbelievably EXCELLENT dupe.
I'm thinking they need a cut more similar to the their SS224's on their SS217's. I actually prefer the Sigma SS224 to the MAC 224. I think they DEFINITELY improved that brush and I'm SO GLAD they did! =] I absolutely hated the MAC 224 because it was too loose, too flimsy and didn't blend much of anything. =P The Sigma SS224 is denser and more firm which makes blending a breeze. The Sigma SS224 also has a better cut than the MAC 224; the MAC 224 tapers more to a point while the Sigma 224 has a flatter top. The flatter top gives you that firm/dense "control" that is especially helpful when blending.
I believe that if they made the cut of the bristles of the Sigma SS217 more similar to the MAC 217's or their SS224's, it'd be alot more comparable. The bristle cut of the Sigma SS217 has too strong of a taper which doesn't allow the full potential of the densely packed bristles (because the bristles on the SS217 are densely packed). A bristle cut that has more of a flattened out top/tip with an ever so SLIGHT taper around the very edges makes for a much more effective blending brush. This specific cut gives users more control, is more effective, and takes less work.
All in all, the Sigma SS217 is a decent dupe of the MAC 217 but it's not as great a dupe as it COULD be. The Sigma brush is made of great quality like all of the other Sigma brushes I own, but I think they could definitely improve on this specific brush and make it a little more comparable. It's NOT a bad brush, it's actually a very good brush. But if you're like me and absolutely LOVE your MAC 217 brush, you may not like the Sigma SS217 as much as your MAC 217. This is just my honest opinion based on using both brushes and comparing the two. I absolutely LOVE Sigma Brushes and DO recommend them to everybody. They make quality brushes at affordable prices. I was just a little disappointed in this specific brush by them. Then again, my favorite EYE BRUSH (not JUST among my MAC brushes, but ALL of my brushes) is my MAC 217, so it's a hard brush to follow/dupe.
I hope this review/comparison was helpful for those who requested it or for anyone who was curious about how they differ and compare. =] Have a great day!
|