Which one of those wide-angle lenses?

[vvizard]

I only got the prime 50mm f/1.4 on my 10D, and I need to expand my focal-lengths both in the wide and telephoto direction. I will start out with the wide-end, since that is what I need most in my photos. Wider is better (but no fisheye). My last (non-SLR) cam got a 28-200mm. That was my first camera, so all references is based on what I experienced from that (Minolta DiMage 7i). At that moment I didn't find 28mm very wide. But with my 10D's 50mm (* 1.6), I would kill for 28mm again :-P So now I need something wide (hopefully even wider than 28mm. That would mean 17mm or less on my 10D.

I don't want to buy a lens that I will use 1year or less before replacing it. I want to buy lenses that can work for years without me getting frustrated. It also can't break the bank. Which is already fighting for recovery :-P I've read reviews of lenses, and have found the following to look like great lenses for me:

1) Canon 17-40mm "L" f/4.
(The 17-35mm f/2.8 is way to expensive for me now)

2) Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF

The reviews I've read make it look like the Sigma can hold it's ground. As a pluss, it's a bit wider, and a bit cheaper to. What would you guys recommend? Please remember that price is a factor, so I'll want a 24-70 and a 70-200 later on. Is it wise to go with the sigma, if that means I'll get the 24-70mm faster, or will the sigma dissapoint me hugely compared to what the 17-40mm "L" would have?

You got thoughts on this?

[ltud]

I have the Sigma 15-30mm and I love it, no other Canon mount Zoom will give you a 24mm field of view (FoV) - until the 12-24mm hits the streets at least.
The Canon 17-40 is very nice being constant aperture, quieter and a bit lighter than the Sigma but it is also a lot more expensive. Plus it only offers a 27mm FoV.
Also, if you plan on buying a 24-70mm, then the extra overlap (the 30-40mm range) that the 17-40mm provides will be unneccesary.

Luke

[vvizard]

You think the 12mm will be any good? I know I sound like a newbie, and that's exactly because that's what I am :-P I realize that for ever mm you tweak it towards the wide or telephoto-end, it'll get harder to obtain quality. And how are your thoughts on this? Have we already seen the "acceptable" quality at around 15-17mm, or is Sigma actually gonna deliver a non-fisheye lens at 12mm giving the same optical quality as they do with 15mm?

You think there will be a big compromise between wide and quality by adding those three extra millimeters?

[agit-prop]

A low budget alternative may be found in the Tokina 19-35 although I cannot guarantee you won't want to replace it in a year...

http://www.pbase.com/image/23135201/medium.jpg
Click here for a couple of unedited sample pics taken with the Tokina 19-35 (http://www.pbase.com/agitprop/tokina)

*Edit... It would appear I have some dust on my sensor. LOL

[DonCoon]

Just went through this same decision making process so I'll share some of the references I found:

Fred Miranda User Ratings:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=1

Both rated 4.4 of 5, both got primarily good comments from the respective users. You should scan all the reviews to form your own opinion.

PhotoZone Optical Lens tests:
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
Sigma = 3.47, Canon = 3.74

PhotoZone User Ratings:
http://www.photozone.de/
Select 2, 1, 5, 1 in the options dropdown lists.
Optical: Sigma = 2.1 (sub average) ?, Canon = 4.57
Build: Sigma = "good", Canon = "superb"
Focus Speed: Sigma = "very slow", Canon = "extremely fast"

Photography Review - Users Ratings:
http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Sigma,15-30mm,f3.5-4.5,EX,DG,/PRD_96751_3128crx.aspx
http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Canon,EF,17-40,f-4L,USM/PRD_144218_3128crx.aspx

Sigma = 4.29, Canon = 4.84


B&H Price: Sigma = $549, Canon = $700

Lots of data to digest and I'm sure there are other references to access.

In the end I decided on the Canon. It's only relative weaknesses seem to be price and 17mm vs 15mm on the Sigma.

Both appear to be well built and sharp, although the PhotoZone's user's optical ratings (2.1 vs. 4.57 for the Canon) seem to be the most glaring difference in all the ratings. Sigma users rated optical performance 1 to 3 stars (poor to good), Canon users ratings are 4 to 5 stars (very good to superb). ??

So much data to digest :( I just decided that for an extra $150 I wasn't going to mess around; I don't want do this again :)

Best of luck whatever you decision.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I too compared the Sigma 15-30mm, 17-35mm and the Canon 17-40mm.

All the reports I read rated the Sigma 15-30 over the 17-35,. so I ruled out the 17-35mm pretty quickly...

So then it was the Sigma 15-30mm Vs. the Canon 17-40mm.

There were two main reasons I got the Canon.

1. I tried the Sigma, and althoiugh the images looked fine (I did not have the chance to put it through its paces,. rather I tried it in a store) this trial was enough for me to experience the "oddities" in ergonomics that the 15-30mm has.. it is a strange lens.

2. Whn comparing Sigma "EX" lenses to Canon "L" lenses pricewise,. one usually finds that similar lenses are less than half the price for the Sigma version.

In this case the price difference is only about $250.00,.. in other words the Sigma is about 2/3rds the cost as opposed to usually less than half. It was easy to justify the added expense of "going for the Canon" this time.

There was actually a third reason I went for the Canon,. but this was personal.

I had heard so much about Canon "L" glass that I had to see for myself. By getting the 17-40mm I was able to see first hand the difference between using "L" lenses Vs. other high quality lenses.

[iwatkins]

I bought the Sigma 17-35 for the only reason that the shop had it there and then and I was desperate for a wide zoom when I bought the 10D.

It is by no means a perfect lens but it was cheap. However, it gives me all my nice sunset and landscape shots and stands up well to quite a bit of abuse. I've seen quite a few reviews that knock it, and to be fair, they are not wrong. However, if you want a cheap wide zoom, then this is the one to go for.

Will I replace it when the 12-24mm arrives ? Probably straight away. :)

Advice in above replies is sound in my limited experience of wide zooms.

Cheers

Ian

[tlveik]

Any speculation on whether Canon will come out with a non-L wide EF-S lens with full time manual focus?

[ltud]

Another reason that I went with the Sigma over the Canon is that the Sigma EX lenses have a 7 year Canadian warranty, and they promise a 48hr turn-around on any service (EX lenses only). Canon is pretty speedy with their pro grear, but not that fast.
I agree though that the Sigma lens has some tricky ergonomics, just takes getting used to.
I would have liked the 17-40mm but the Sigma was offering me more for less.

[vvizard]

This is a tough one for me. The price-difference isn't "that" big. And The L's are easy to pick up in Norway. But I don't know a single norwegian webshop selling sigma equipment. Won't matter that much, I'll import from bhphotovideo anyway I think. They're a lot cheaper than their norwegian counterparts.

For the price-difference, I really want the canon, while my wallet screams Sigma. The biggest reason that I wan't the Canon, is just to experience how an L is. This is the cheapest L that I've found, and therefore it might be a valuable experience to pick it up, and then judge from it, weather my future purchases have to be L, or if I'll save money by going the EX-route. I don't know.. Guess I'll have to find a photography-shop and ask if I can try the lenses on the camera before buying. At least I would like to try the Sigma, and see if the ergonomics are as bad as someone claim..

[DaveG]

vvizard wrote:
I only got the prime 50mm f/1.4 on my 10D, and I need to expand my focal-lengths both in the wide and telephoto direction. I will start out with the wide-end, since that is what I need most in my photos. Wider is better (but no fisheye). My last (non-SLR) cam got a 28-200mm. That was my first camera, so all references is based on what I experienced from that (Minolta DiMage 7i). At that moment I didn't find 28mm very wide. But with my 10D's 50mm (* 1.6), I would kill for 28mm again :-P So now I need something wide (hopefully even wider than 28mm. That would mean 17mm or less on my 10D.

I don't want to buy a lens that I will use 1year or less before replacing it. I want to buy lenses that can work for years without me getting frustrated. It also can't break the bank. Which is already fighting for recovery :-P I've read reviews of lenses, and have found the following to look like great lenses for me:

1) Canon 17-40mm "L" f/4.
(The 17-35mm f/2.8 is way to expensive for me now)

2) Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF

The reviews I've read make it look like the Sigma can hold it's ground. As a pluss, it's a bit wider, and a bit cheaper to. What would you guys recommend? Please remember that price is a factor, so I'll want a 24-70 and a 70-200 later on. Is it wise to go with the sigma, if that means I'll get the 24-70mm faster, or will the sigma dissapoint me hugely compared to what the 17-40mm "L" would have?

You got thoughts on this?

Three or four years from now the $150 difference in price for the Canon lens will have evaporated in your mind. If you are anything like me you won't even remember exactly what you paid for it.

As I've written here before, you can test a lens for optical quality, and the Sigma probably does OK there. Yet it is almost impossible to test a lens for build quality since the proof of that eating is down the road a few years. In any case I would say that a four year old Sigma anything is going to be worth far less than 2/3's the price of a four year old Canon L series lens.

Other than price I just don't think that there's any down side to buying the Canon.

[DonCoon]

DaveG wrote:

Three or four years from now the $150 difference in price for the Canon lens will have evaporated in your mind. If you are anything like me you won't even remember exactly what you paid for it.

As I've written here before, you can test a lens for optical quality, and the Sigma probably does OK there. Yet it is almost impossible to test a lens for build quality since the proof of that eating is down the road a few years. In any case I would say that a four year old Sigma anything is going to be worth far less than 2/3's the price of a four year old Canon L series lens.

Other than price I just don't think that there's any down side to buying the Canon.


That was my final take even though the 2 lenses were close in ratings.

For $150 more, ~$2.50 a month difference over 5 years, I'm sure the Canon lens will a) have greater market value and b) be more likely to be compatible with next-generation Canon cameras.

Sorry Sigma, that's just what history suggests even though there are some attractive Sigma price/performance deals out there. At half price, I may take the risk, or not .

[CyberDyneSystems]

You do bring up a good point re: value retention.

You are practically guaranteed the ability to sell the Canon lens (if you have reason too) for not much less than you paid. (maybe get 85%-90% of price paid back) so long as you don't bang it around too much.

Where as I just bought a "Like New" Sigma 500mm f/4.5 for $1,400.00 less than the original price. A Canon in that condition would not have lost $1,400.00 in value... no way.