Canon 17-40L or Sigma 12-24?

[ngiovas]

I asked this question on another forum, but no one replied. I thought I would give it a try here as well.

I finally decided to make the switch from film to digital and I ordered a Canon 5D. I am also looking for a new wide angle lens. While all of my other lenses are Canon primes, I am thinking that zooms are the only way to go below 20mm. I can't decide between the Canon 17-40L and the Sigma 12-24. I am leaning towards the Sigma because of the range, but I am concerned about picture quality and low light shooting. Most of my wide angle shots will be taken outside, but I would like the flexibility to shoot indoors.

With all of that said, is the Canon 17-40L (or 16-35L) clearly a much better lens than the Sigma, or are they similar in image quality? Keep in mind that I will be shooting with a full frame sensor.

any advice would be greatly appreciated.

NG

[SuzyView]

I agonized about the 17-40 and 16-35. Read a few threads here, asked the questions, and decided on the 17-40. Main reason was I usually have my flash with me so the f4 doesn't hurt too much, but for landscapes, it's the best lens for me. You are getting a 5D, FF, which will make the 17-40 a true wide angle lens. And the sharpness of this combination is amazing. I have the Tamron 19-35, which is an able lens, but nothing as sharp, great for color or as useful as the 17-40. Even if I saved enough for the 16-35, I'd still keep the 17-40. That's how good it is.

[lomond]

NG, I have the 17-40 and I'm considering the Sigma 12-24.
The 17-40 is IMO superb value for money but I would like wider with my 1.3 crop camera.

The problems I have with the Sigma are two fold;
1. There are concerns over the image quality regarding softness, especially towards the edges and which vary from copy to copy.
2. The difficulty in fitting filters due to the bulbous front element.

Both are very important to me but I still crave the 12mm. :(

[ngiovas]

Thanks for the replies. I have heard that Sigma is very good about re-calibrating these lenses upon request. Has anyone done this? Is it free if the lens is under warranty? Will it come back improved?

NG

[SuzyView]

Canon will recalibrate and clean as well. But most of the reviews I've seen, very few people have had trouble with their 17-40's. I had my 24-70L recalibrated, and I only paid for shipping one way. Canon did the rest.

[denMAR]

17-40 from what I've heard over the two lenses.

[chtgrubbs]

See this site for comparison tests:http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/index.html
The Sigma really requires small f/stops for best performance, which means it would hamper indoor shooting unless you could use a tripod.

[GNMink]

on a FF the Sigma is the only Ultra wide zoom available, probably too wide for use on a regular basis unless your really into landscape and as mentioned it is a slow lens so not very usefull indoors without flash.

I'd suggest getting the 17-40L, it will give you a nice wide range on a FF and is a very sharp lens. I've read nothing but good things about it.

[steved110]

The 17-40L is a much more useful focal length, ultrawides can get a bit boring/ niche oriented once the novelty wears off you are left with an expensive but little used lens. unless you know for sure, go for the 17-40.
you can use filters on the sigma 12-24 - but they are rear drop-in gelatine filters.
I got my 17-40L to replace the kit lens, and am delighted with it. It's wide enough for me most of the time, and I don't miss the extra mm on the tele end that much. I also have no probs with the f/4 either, being happy to crank up the ISO and/or use flash if need be.

[RikWriter]

Get the 17-40 is my advice. If you had a crop camera and wanted to use it on both, I'd go with the Sigma, but for full frame, the 17-40 is plenty wide enough---most of the time, I use my 24-70 as my WA landscape lens with my 5D.

[cjm]

17-40 L, I bought the Tokina 12-24. Although I loved the 12mm part the 17mm wasn't that much less wide. So I sold the Tokina and bought the 17-40 L. If only I did this originally, I could have saved money.

[jrsforums]

I have both...on a 5D...along with 24-105, plus others.

First, you say you are getting the 5D, but I don't know if you have other FF experience. I think you will find that 24mm is plenty wide for much general purpose stuff. That kind of relegates wider lens to more special purpose uses...compared to 1.6 crops, where wider is necessary.

The 17-40 is a great lens. From all reports, on par with the 16-35. Nice for landscapes and when working small spaces (for example, I could have really used it in a number of places while recently visiting Graceland with my wife). I find that, with the 5D's high ISO capability, I really do not miss the 1 stop (to 2.8 with the 16-35). I am sure a pro working a wedding might disagree.

However, the Sigma 12-24 can do things on FF that is hard to believe until you see it. Amazingly little distortion (barrel or pin). Fantastic for interior architectural scenes and, for example, church interiors and other similar sites. Some report edge softness, which is not surprising, but, in many cases, is due to OOF...it is so wide that if focused on a plane (a wall, for example) in the center, the distance to the edges (remember your geometry) is so much greater that even with the greater DOF it will easily not be in focus.

Anyway....if you REALLY like wide and can afford it, I would get both. If cost, right now, is key, I would start with the 17-40. I think you may get more use from it on a regular basis.

My 2 centavos.....JOHN

BTW...don't take this wrong, but all you guys with 20D's (or other crop cameras) making recommendations based on you experiences have to realize that the 17-40 is a TOTALLY different lens on a crop camera (and...the Tokina will not work on the 5D....at least it will mechanical vignette until you get up to ~17mm)

[Canonic]

I'm an ex-owner of 17-40/4L. Sold it to buy 16-35. But I keep me Siggy 12-24/4.5-5.6. I shoot with Canon 5D.

17-40/4L is guite sufficient to cover wide range on a FF camera. But I usually require more. This is a reason for me to keep 12-24.

In terms of optical quality 17-40 is far more advanced then Siggy. But still this SIgma provides you with an ultra-wide angle of view.

On a FF you'll get VERY wide pics with 12-24, but you have to pay for this advantage. This payment includes
a/ inability to use front filters (only gel plates mounted at the rear glass),
b/ a bit 'yellowish' pictures due to a specific optics,
c/ less speed (F4.5-5.6, and F5.6 limit comes at 14 mm focal range and forth),
d/ peripheral frame defocus visible at F5.6 to f8,
e/ visible chromatic aberrations at F4.5-8,
f/ vignetting at FF and film cameras.

These drops of poison may spoil a barrel of ale. But if you knew these problems, you may make Sigma 12-24 to do masterpieces. This lens is a headache for a newbee, but on the other side it may surely be an ultimale optical instrument for a master.

Actually I'm not a master :) Just learning. But I like this piece of glass.

P.S. Thanks Jrsforums to fill in the blanks in my post.

[ngiovas]

First, you say you are getting the 5D, but I don't know if you have other FF experience. I think you will find that 24mm is plenty wide for much general purpose stuff. That kind of relegates wider lens to more special purpose uses...compared to 1.6 crops, where wider is necessary.



Thanks for the info Canonic. I have been shooting film for over 20 years. I mostly shoot 35mm, so full frame is all I have ever worked with. I currently have the Canon 24 f2.8. While it is wide and is great for a lot of shots, I really am looking for something wider for some creative landscape and architecture shots. I am really tempted to give the Sigma a try and just send it in for calibration if it is off.

I tried the Canon 16-35L and 17-40L at the local camera shop, but they were out of the Sigma, so I couldn't compare.

NG

[Canonic]

Thanks for the info Canonic. I have been shooting film for over 20 years. I mostly shoot 35mm, so full frame is all I have ever worked with. I currently have the Canon 24 f2.8. While it is wide and is great for a lot of shots, I really am looking for something wider for some creative landscape and architecture shots. I am really tempted to give the Sigma a try and just send it in for calibration if it is off.

I tried the Canon 16-35L and 17-40L at the local camera shop, but they were out of the Sigma, so I couldn't compare.

NG

I've never imagined you're an experienced photographer. Sorry. :oops: No data to refer to. I'm sure you will be satisfied with S 12-24. :cool:

[blackviolet]

i have the Sigma 12-24 and it complements my 24-70 quite well. the front element is spherical so you can't use traditional filters - only rear gels. i find that mine is pretty sharp at the wide end. sure it's not quite L glass, but it's EX and it's definitely quite good. yes it is softer in the corners when wide.

on the otherhand the 17-40 is a fantastic lens i have used on many occasions, but for me it's too limiting for walk around usage.

here is a shot from the Sigma - 12mm @ F4.5 on a 1dmk2
http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/tempy/_T2A3394.jpg

[Doom1701e]

I vote for the 17-40, it is a great lens.

[ngiovas]

Blackviolet,
That is a great shot. I am planning on giving the Sigma a shot (pun intended). I really don't think I can go wrong either way, and I like the flexibility of having the ultra wide range. I think it will compliment the 5D well.

Did yours work well out of the box, or did you have it calibrated?

NG

[motion_projekt]

isnt the sigma like 4.5-5.6? while the L...you get f/4 all the way through

[ngiovas]

isnt the sigma like 4.5-5.6? while the L...you get f/4 all the way through

Yes it is, but with the 5D's performance at higher ISOs and the use of a tripod, I think it will work fine for the occasional interior and low light shot.

Already having the 24mm f2.8 I am covered for a lot of my low light shooting. My main goal was to have the ultra-wide capability for landscape shooting, but to occasionaly shoot inside.