Sigma 15-30 or Canon 17-40 [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Jeppe

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 02:13

accually, when measuring it in a testbench, the Sigma turned out to be 16mm, whereas the Canon was truly 17mm. Also, you will have more distorsion with the Sigma, since its wider.

I have the EF 17-40 and picked that over the sigma. Twice the price, well yes. But then again its a Canon.
I am really pleased with my choice and even though i miss super W.A. moving from analogue EOS, i find this lens okay for most situation.

But the Sigma is nice too (although, the Canon is better optically). it all comes down to how much you want to spend.

Lens prevails....housing come and go ;)

Fried

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 04:00

I choose the Sigma over the Canon, it is wider and better than the particular 17-40 I compared it with.
Main drawbacks are the size and slower AF.
I did also try a polarizer, no vignetting on a 10D but no convincing results neither, I will not spend ~200€ for such a filter (82mm)!

PaulB

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 04:21

Really no contest - has to be the Canon.
Better built, better optically (regardless of what the Sigma fans say). The difference in focal length at the wide end is frankley unimportant - see Jeppes' post anyway.
I still fail to see the sense in buying an expensive body and then not putting a lens of comparable quality on it. I know how intolerant of less than good lenses digital is,
it shows up any flaw in a lens far more than film does and good wide angle zooms are much more difficult to produce cheaply than telephoto ranges are.

hurry

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 05:21

I still fail to see the sense in buying an expensive body and then not putting a lens of comparable quality on it.

Why drive my RollsRoyce with same fuel like 10x cheaper cars?

I want a GOOD fuel, per gallon for $ 199.99 !
Is there a fuel from the Champagne?

nucki

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 05:41

i agree with hurry! the sigma lens isnt that bad as some people say. its really well build, and its very sharp. ok, maybe the canon would be a little bit better than the sigma but if you dont be a absolute professional I dont think you really need a more expensive lens.

I own the sigma and I 'am really pleased with it!

regards
Peter

Erin

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 06:04

For contented owner reveiws of the 15-30 Sigma, visit www. fredmiranda.com and look in the reveiws forum, under Sigma, there are 11 opinions from users posted there. There are also a good number of happy 17-40 Canon users that have posted opinions on that lens in the Canon lens section of the same forum.

In optical comparison there is little between them, The Canon is weatherproofed to latest 'L' standards (you could use it on a 1D /1Ds/ 1V, in monsoon rain, unprotected) It also has silent fast usm focusing.

The Sigma is well built also, with a permanantly attached metal lens cover, to protect the exposed front element. The autofocus setup is slighty less convenient than on the Canon. It is a large lense. The 2mm difference is very important if you want the widest Canon fitting zoom and is the reason I decided to buy the Sigma.

As for it being 16mm, well this is the first time I have ever heard of that! I would take that with a grain of salt.

mickeyjuice

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 08:49

PaulB wrote:
Really no contest - has to be the Canon.
Better built, better optically (regardless of what the Sigma fans say). The difference in focal length at the wide end is frankley unimportant - see Jeppes' post anyway.
I still fail to see the sense in buying an expensive body and then not putting a lens of comparable quality on it. I know how intolerant of less than good lenses digital is,
it shows up any flaw in a lens far more than film does and good wide angle zooms are much more difficult to produce cheaply than telephoto ranges are.

No contest? Perhaps you should compare them rather than just dismiss the Sigma out of hand.

Agreed, the Canon is most likely better built, ('L' seals and all), but the Sigma seems fine.

Better optically? Ignore the people who disagree with your assessment, you're right, I guess. FWIW, mine is excellent optically, and yes, I've used a 16-35 a fair bit, so I know a little about good wide glass.

The difference in focal length is unimportant? What a complete load of rubbish - why not just use a 50mm prime then? You're not going to miss anything, right? Maybe it's not important - FOR YOU - but to dismiss it like that gives you a credibility rating of about zero.

(As for the "Sigma is actually 16mm" - it's funny how no-one who repeats that assertion can actually point to a source for it, isn't it? A mate of mine in the US did tests, and reckons it's 14.x mm, so make of that what you will.)

I agree about putting good glass on the 10D - that's why I'm more than happy with the Sigma 15-30, having tried all the options available to me.

Mark Kemp

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 12:23

I havent tried the 17-40 but I borrowed a mates 15 -30 and didn't like it very much.

I have no problem with the picture quality. I didn't do a very scientific test, but there were no obvious flaws.

But the handling bothered me.

1) It seemed pretty long and heavy for a wide angle - awkward but not a disaster.

2) The fixed lens hood means no filters - except silly little plastic things in the back. I know we don't use filters much with digital but I like to have the option, a polariser now and again, that sort of thing.

3)I kept wanting it to zoom to about 35 or 40mm, quite often the 30mm end was a bit too wide and I had to change lenses. (Situation dependant of course, but that was my experience).

3) The worst thing is that you have to slide a ring forward and backward as well as switching the AF/M switch to go from auto to manual focus. It sounds like a little thing but when you are used to Canon lenses its is a major pain to remember, especially if you are in a hurry.

Its not a bad lens, but you should consider the handling as well as just the quality before you spend the money. It might suit you, you may love it, or you may find it awkward as I did. See if you can borrow one or at least try it in the shop.

------------------------------
A whole load of stuff I probably couldn't afford

PaulB

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 15:57

If you look for my earlier posts on the 15-30mm Sigma you will see that I went to buy one but after testing it decided that the quality wasn't up to my requirements - especially optically (the handling I would have got used to in time) compared to my L lenses. I bought a 16-35/2.8L.
I'm not disparaging the Sigma - as a budget lens.
I still think that not enough people who are buying 10Ds realise how much of the final image quality is down to the lens.
As a professional I firmly believe that however good the imaging medium - CCD,CMOS or film -you can't get get out what isn't there in the first place and the lens is what puts the image onto the medium.
Digital sensors do seem to show up the flaws in lenses more than film does - the 1.6x crop factor and looking at 100% crops on a monitor isn't something that most non-pro. film users do either but are easy with digital.
GIGO - garbage in garbage out.
Why compromise on the lens after spending all that money on the body - might be that you are spending the money in the wrong places for maximum benefit.

You guys obviously don't need the image quality I take for granted in a lens but that doesn't mean I'm not right in my recommendation. FOR ME to choose between the Sigma 15-30 and the Canon 17-40 is no contest, the Canon wins hands down and now I hope you understand why.

Jeppe

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 17:14

Okay, since that issue with the 16mm came up for debate. Its from a Swedish Photomagazine that sends the lenses to Hasselblad. They put it in the bench (exactly the same bench that was used for the photodo-readings). They measure the lenses and the Sigma accually turned out as a 16mm. Just like most 70-200 zooms not really are 200mm.

Like the Sigma EX 70-200/2.8

http://www.photodo.se/prod/objektiv/detail/SiAF70-200_28APOEX-785.shtml

It turns out to be 72-193mm

So..there is your source.. Now, you can take that information with a grain of salt or whatever...

Best Reg.

Jeppe

Steve D.

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 17:34

I just posted a Sigma 17-35 4 sale in marketplace but it comes with a D30 package.

msvirick

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 19:22

What are the prices of these 2 lenses

CyberDyneSystems

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 19:50

The Sigma 17-35 goes for about $375.00-$440.00

The Sigma 15-30mm goes for about $450.00-$550.00

The Canon 17-40mm goes for $800.00

Erin

30th of July 2003 (Wed), 22:02

Jeppe wrote:
Okay, since that issue with the 16mm came up for debate. Its from a Swedish Photomagazine that sends the lenses to Hasselblad. They put it in the bench (exactly the same bench that was used for the photodo-readings). They measure the lenses and the Sigma accually turned out as a 16mm. Just like most 70-200 zooms not really are 200mm.

Like the Sigma EX 70-200/2.8

http://www.photodo.se/prod/objektiv/detail/SiAF70-200_28APOEX-785.shtml

It turns out to be 72-193mm

So..there is your source.. Now, you can take that information with a grain of salt or whatever...

Best Reg.

Jeppe AS I cannot read German, that MAY apply to the 70-200 EX Sigma, but you still have not provided definitive proof that the 15-30 is actually a 16 to 30. Pass the salt please!

Jeppe

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 02:47

German ?? Huh ?

Well Okay! Here comes the salt. And yes, i am aware that the salt is Swedish, but its all that i have.

Can you please pass on the pepper ?? ;)

http://www.naturfotografen.net/10D/15-30.jpg

Hint: look under "Uppmätt brännvidd": (That is measured focallength, in English)

But again. Im not debating the fact that the Sigma is good/bad, its a good lens. What i am debating is the focallength.

Erin

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 03:32

Jeppe,Thank you for your copy from the source of the 16mm allegation. While it is all double dutch to me, it does show that there is one 15-30 example that may have tested as you say. Can you now please post a test from the same source on the 17-40 Canon so we can get a balanced veiwpoint?

PaulB

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 03:42

Something else that has not been taken into account here is the difference in pricing in different countries, which alters the relative value of the lenses in question.

CyberDyneSystems quotes $ prices,

"The Sigma 15-30mm goes for about $450.00-$550.00

The Canon 17-40mm goes for $800.00".

Here in the UK we pay roughly £ for $.
When I tested the Sigma 15-30 it had a UK price of £530, the 17-40L was quoted (pre release in the UK at £800). So far £ for $.
The actual price of the 17-40L when it became available was £700 - the smaller difference in price made the Sigma much less attractive. I don't have the present prices to hand but I suspect that the price of the Sigma will have dropped somewhat!
Which of course doesn't explain why I bought the 16-35L - that's another tale entirely.......

As to the difference in focal length.In my original post I think what I daid was misconstrued.
I did not mean that a 50mm is the same as a 15mm lens at all as well you should have realised.
I think that the difference from 15mm to 17mm is negligible - even on digital with the 1.6x crop - to the vast majority of people. If you are unable to accomodate such a difference in wide angle in your shooting then you are in real trouble.
And then there is the matter of actual v quoted focal length, as some manufacturing tolerances are tighter than others whilst wishful thinking and marketing also play their part in many lens specifications.

How do you know that the 15-30 you own (if you do of course) is as quoted? Has it a smaller range or larger? If your lens turns out to be 16-29mm are you going to notice, are you going to sue the manufacturer? If larger range, are you going to sell it on at a premium as a Sigma 14-31mm?
Do we really care?
Most photographers, rather than the measurement obsessed, tend to accept these manufacturing tolerances and just get on with taking the best pictures they can with the equipment at hand.

Erin

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 04:10

PaulB.

On a D30/60/10D The perceived difference in focal length between the 15-30 Sigma and the 17-40 Canon is 24mm equivalent for the Sigma and 27.2mm for the Canon.

There is a very significant perspective change in those 3.2 mm for a photographer who has a need for the widest Canon fitting zoom.

I use mine for Editorial freelance work and in many cases the extra Sigma width adds that bit of 'zap' when photographing people in their enviroments.

Jeppe

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 05:07

Im with Erin here. There IS a big difference between 28mm and 24mm (accually 27.2 vs 24mm in this case)

Erin: I will post when they test the EF 17-40. I could post the test from EF 16-35/2.8L (which is 16mm measured) but that wont do any good, since its the 17-40 we discuss. I cant remember where i saw the test for EF 17-40. But i will try and find it.

But again... I personally like the things that differs the EF from the Sigma. Its, all about where you want to spend your money.

Oh.. one thing... the AF on Sigma wont work in -25 degrees celsius.. Wheras the Canon will ;)

You can find a test @ http://burren.cx/photo/ultrawide/1530v1740.html

One more thing why i like the 17-40 over the 15-30 is those extra 10mm at the "long" end.

hurry

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 06:34

If tomorrow will come monsoon rain and it's -25° ... should I buy a CANON 17-40?

What's if it is only 17.5 - 39.9 ?

Should I return it, buy a Sigma and travel to monsoonfree islands with guaranteed temperature > 10°

Littlebike

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 08:12

PaulB wrote:
I still fail to see the sense in buying an expensive body and then not putting a lens of comparable quality on it.

Because many of us blew our wad on the body alone. After I bought my body I was barely able to afford the Sigma 24-70 2.8ex I am using. It is going to be several months before I can afford the 70-200 2.8 sigma let alone the Canon equivelent at twice the price - to get that I would have to wait well over a year.

Many of us Sigma buyers are not laiden with cash and consider the sigma lens to be quite expensive.

The lenses I was using with my previous camera - minolta X-700 - were between $150 - $200, so the Sigma is a huge step.

I have no idea how many other people are in the same boat but i am willing to bet there are a lot more people who are barely able to afford a Sigma 2.8 and view a Canon equivelent as being about as ataibable as a ride on the space shuttle.

just my opinion.

PaulB

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 08:15

Erin,
Why is the difference in focal length only "perceived"? It either is or it isn't.
And it proberbly isn't, as we have seen from the magazine test - 'their' 15-30mm was actually a 16-29mm, other 15-30s may be shorter/longer at either end - it's a natural consequence of the manufacturing tolerances and marketing hype (which wants their lens to be wider than any others....)
When it all comes down to it it is the photographer who makes the picture - the camera and lens only record it and this recording should be to the highest possible quality given the circumstances. This latter simply means that you have to start with the best equipment possible in the circumstances you are working under - END

Erin

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 09:40

PaulB.
In answer to your question,the actual area of coverage of a 15-30mm lens is just that on a 35mm film body or 1Ds type full frame sensor" .

As the sensor in the D60/10D is smaller, the area of image coverage is reduced so that the coverage on the smaller sensor is equivalent to that of a 24mm lens on a 35mm/fullframe sensor.

The properties of the lense are not changed in any way. Only the centre portion of the lense focal plane is used to provide coverage for the smaller sensor.

cubfan

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 09:43

I like to buy my equipment with a thought for the future and Canon lenses always resale better than Sigmas. If you can't afford the Canon, I think that the Sigmas are a good substitute. I have had the Sigma 17-35 and thought it was a pretty nice lens. I sold it and bought the Canon which is a better lens but also costs a lot more. I paid $800 for the Canon and I could use it for two years and sell it for $750 on Ebay...thats a good reason to buy a canon if you have the cash. Sigma , Tamron and Tokina lenses are all good lenses but resale is not nearly as good. My 2 cents..thanks Brian

PaulB

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 12:56

Erin, I do understand what I said but you obviously didn't - I was refering to the actual focal length as opposed to the marked focal length.

The coverage of the lens does not alter depending on the image size at the film/sensor plane.
The 10D sensor is smaller than a full 35mm frame and only uses the central 22.7mm x 15.1mm of the image.
At no time does the focal length of the lens alter from that stated on the lens - ie. a 50mm/1.8 remains exactly that regardless of which body it is on.
All the lens characteristics remain the same regardless of the image size at the film/sensor plane, we just discard the outer edges.
Therefore a 24mm lens on a full frame body has exactly the same angle of view as it has when fitted to a 10D. 1D or 1Ds - it is the sensor size which determines how much of the possible image projected backwards by the lens is used.

Lenses 'see' a circular field and project this as a circular image onto the film/sensor plane - an extreme example been the circular fisheye - in an ordinary lens this circle is just slightly larger than a full 35mm frame. On the 10D only the central part of the image is recorded, giving rise to the 1.6x crop.

Many people refer to this crop factor as if the lens were actually 1.6x longer, this is not really the case. It is more realistic to look on the image as if you had cropped the central portion from a full frame negative and just used a 22.7mm x 15.1mm portion out of it. Therefore the picture from a (say) 300mm lens on a 10D will have all the characteristics that the same lens has on a full frame - the same depth of field, the same perspective etc.

Littlebike,
If you spent all you could afford on a 10D body and didn't have anything left over for good lenses perhaps you should have just bought a Canon 35mm and/or 50mm and learnt how to use the camera with those whilst saving up for some really good glass - that was how I did it when I started with real film SLRs many years ago!

Littlebike

31st of July 2003 (Thu), 23:35

PaulB wrote:
Littlebike,
If you spent all you could afford on a 10D body and didn't have anything left over for good lenses perhaps you should have just bought a Canon 35mm and/or 50mm and learnt how to use the camera with those whilst saving up for some really good glass.....

Is learnt really a word?

Actually, i think I bought a really good lens. I suppose those who drive jaguars think my roadmaster is a "nice car" but I could certainly do better.

This is an issue of perception to a degree.

I ride bikes. Over the years I have accumulated several thousand dollars worth of them. But I do not tell somebody they should buy a $1000 bike to really enjoy riding when, for them, a $350 bike will do.

Webster

1st of August 2003 (Fri), 11:38

Littlebike wrote:

Is learnt really a word?

You know things are getting nasty when people on an international forum start picking on the fine points of the English language.

C'mon, folks, we're all in this to have fun and improve our skills and our inventories of equipment. The about-to-breakout food fight will make a big mess in my computer, so could maybe forgo it?