sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX DG vs canon 16-35mm 2.8

[yagobrf29]

I am contemplating the idea of getting the sigma instead of the canon due to pricing, about 800.00 less. Any comments. Don't know much about the sigma, great reviews on the 16-35 though.Thank!

[Tsmith]

assuming your looking at this lens: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=190&sort=7&cat=37&page=2 ... not very good users reviews.

[yagobrf29]

Thanks. I guess I keep saving for the canon 16-35 2.8.

[Tee Why]

Another option is the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4

[yagobrf29]

any comments on the tamron 17-35 2.8. Is it better than sigma.

[cfcRebel]

I have had a Sigma 17-35 f2.8 EX DG Macro. I wasn't impressed at all. The HSM is nice but the focus is very slow, IMO. Even slower than my 18-55 kit lens(non-USM). I have not used the Tamron 17-35 but the review is far better than the Sigma's.

[Tsmith]

The Tamron is a very good lens but do understand its not f/2.8 throughout the zoom range as the Canon is. Whats your intended use for the lens (do you really need a f/2.8 wide angle) and which body will it be attached to?

[yagobrf29]

Canon EOS 5D. Wide shots of the panama Canal maybe some nite shots also. It is beautiful at nite.

[Tsmith]

Fine Camera _ my choice would be the 17-40 f/4L. For night stuff your most likely gonna need a tripod anyway. The reviews are on par with and some even show better IQ than its f/2.8 counterpart.

[yagobrf29]

Thank you, bluedog. I will look into the 17-40 f4. I guess is shipper also.

[condyk]

Weird original choices those two. Chalk and cheese. Best tell us what you want to use the lens for otherwise any advice may be misplaced IMHO.

[chtgrubbs]

An excellent site with extensive tests of WA zooms:http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

[echo]

The Sigma 15-30 is awesome, I use mine on my 5D for stunning results, has to be 5.6 and up though. Super sharp, sharper than my Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro!