Any real reason to get a 17-40L over a Sigma 17-70?

[Blitz]

I realize this has probably been beaten to death in the past, but every thread on the subject I found when searching for it was pretty much full of 50% endorsements for the Canon and the other half for the Sigma. Some say the Canon is not worth twice as much, others that it is. Up until I started reading about the 17-70 last night, I was pretty dead set on a 17-40 as my walkaround, but some of the shots in the 17-70 sample thread honestly blew my mind. There are great shots in the 17-40 thread as well, don't get me wrong, but two times as great? I dunno, it doesn't seem like it.

I asked a friend with a 17-70 what he would do in my shoes. Here is his response:

"The saddest part of cameras is that you actually do get what you pay for. I love the focal range of my Sigma, no doubt, but it's just not as high quality a piece of glass as the 17-40L. The aperture at 17mm might be 2.8, but that closes down to 5.6 by the time you get the 70mm, which can be a real pain in the ass when you're walking around at an event.

I do like the focal range of the sigma, but now that I have a 24-105 to fill most any focal length I need, I feel that the only situations I need to use the Sigma are for when I'm REALLY close to cars.

For the price it's not bad, but it will be more prone to chromatic abberation+fringing issues, will get lens flare easier (I got really bad flares on some great photos), and also won't focus quite as fast or as quietly as the Canon equivalent.

If you're gonna stick with EF-S mount cameras, the 17-55 IS is the lens you really want, but then again, money..."

Is he right? Is the Canon, in the right hands, worth twice as much as the Sigma? Based on the samples I have seen, it seems like it would be a close battle if they were in the same price bracket, but the fact that the Sigma costs half (!) what the Canon costs makes it seem like a no-brainer.

I currently have the kit 18-55, a 35 f/2 (love it to death), and a 70-300 IS USM. If I go with the 17-40, I will have a gap from 40-70mm, but I honestly don't think it will be an issue. The Sigma has a longer focal range and is faster wide open, and I've seen some Macro shots taken with it that were just incredible. Like this one, for example:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Thailand/Water-Lilly.jpg

Can the Canon do Macro like that?

There is also the fact that the Canon will work on a full frame while the Sigma won't, but I'm going to be upgrading from my Rebel to a 30D soon and that will last me at least a few years, so I'm not worrying about full frame compatibility just yet.

Is there anything I've forgotten to take into consideration? To be honest, I never thought I would be interested in a lens that wasn't made by Canon (call me a snob if you must), but the 17-70 is changing that. Deep down something is still pulling me to the 17-40, but I'm not quite sure what it is. Perhaps someone can convince me that the 17-40 is worth the extra money.

[timbop]

yes, this has been beaten to death in the last week or so. Asking again won't change the answer: there are 17-40 devotees and naysayers. In my (what I think is logical) opinion the 17-40 is a great UWA for full frame cameras. Since the dawn of the APS-C digital age, there are now better lenses for APS-C (aka 1.6 crop) cameras. These lenses take advantage of the smaller sensor size, and optimize the elements for it. The 2 sigmas, the tamron 17-50, and 17-55IS are better choices if you are going to keep a crop camera for any length of time. For an individual analysis of these lenses, read the 4 or 5 current threads.

[ed rader]

I realize this has probably been beaten to death in the past, but every thread on the subject I found when searching for it was pretty much full of 50% endorsements for the Canon and the other half for the Sigma. Some say the Canon is not worth twice as much, others that it is. Up until I started reading about the 17-70 last night, I was pretty dead set on a 17-40 as my walkaround, but some of the shots in the 17-70 sample thread honestly blew my mind. There are great shots in the 17-40 thread as well, don't get me wrong, but two times as great? I dunno, it doesn't seem like it.

I asked a friend with a 17-70 what he would do in my shoes. Here is his response:

"The saddest part of cameras is that you actually do get what you pay for. I love the focal range of my Sigma, no doubt, but it's just not as high quality a piece of glass as the 17-40L. The aperture at 17mm might be 2.8, but that closes down to 5.6 by the time you get the 70mm, which can be a real pain in the ass when you're walking around at an event.

I do like the focal range of the sigma, but now that I have a 24-105 to fill most any focal length I need, I feel that the only situations I need to use the Sigma are for when I'm REALLY close to cars.

For the price it's not bad, but it will be more prone to chromatic abberation+fringing issues, will get lens flare easier (I got really bad flares on some great photos), and also won't focus quite as fast or as quietly as the Canon equivalent.

If you're gonna stick with EF-S mount cameras, the 17-55 IS is the lens you really want, but then again, money..."

Is he right? Is the Canon, in the right hands, worth twice as much as the Sigma? Based on the samples I have seen, it seems like it would be a close battle if they were in the same price bracket, but the fact that the Sigma costs half (!) what the Canon costs makes it seem like a no-brainer.

I currently have the kit 18-55, a 35 f/2 (love it to death), and a 70-300 IS USM. If I go with the 17-40, I will have a gap from 40-70mm, but I honestly don't think it will be an issue. The Sigma has a longer focal range and is faster wide open, and I've seen some Macro shots taken with it that were just incredible. Like this one, for example:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Thailand/Water-Lilly.jpg

Can the Canon do Macro like that?

There is also the fact that the Canon will work on a full frame while the Sigma won't, but I'm going to be upgrading from my Rebel to a 30D soon and that will last me at least a few years, so I'm not worrying about full frame compatibility just yet.

Is there anything I've forgotten to take into consideration? To be honest, I never thought I would be interested in a lens that wasn't made by Canon (call me a snob if you must), but the 17-70 is changing that. Deep down something is still pulling me to the 17-40, but I'm not quite sure what it is. Perhaps someone can convince me that the 17-40 is worth the extra money.


the 17-40L may very well not be worth the money to you. when i bought the 17-40L my decision was between it and the 17-50 tamron.

i not only chose the canon but i also chose to stick with canon lenses from that point on.

no regrets with either decision :D .

ed rader

[DerekI]

The Sigma 's IQ and real life practicality is good but the BQ of the lens is lousy.

I think all Sigmas creep themselves and stay at their longest focal length always.

[El Duderino]

Don't forget about the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

[Blitz]

The Sigma 's IQ and real life practicality is good but the BQ of the lens is lousy.

I think all Sigmas creep themselves and stay at their longest focal length always.

BQ?

[DerekI]

BQ?

Build Quality , the sigma lens is not well built , and the zoom creeps often .

I like the Tamron 17-50 for its BQ and color, and I like the Canon for its general IQ.

I like the Sigma for its versatility or real life practicality.

It is very convenient to have macro like feature on your general walk-around lens ....if you shoot close-ups or flowers alot .

That said,If the Sigma had better BQ , I would keep it.

I 've rented 3 lenses the Sigma 18-50EX macro ,the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 17-50, I am not sure which lens to keep yet , but I think I will most likely keep the Tamron with my 17-85IS and 70-300IS.

the Tamron is built better, and opticlaly slightly better at its best than the Sigma 17-70 at its best .

I think the Sigma 18-50EX macro is the best of those 3 lenses in term of pure IQ , but the 18mm is not wide enough and the body color of lens(grey and gold) is not cool.

[wimg]

BQ = Build Quality

I have decided to stick with Canon, unless there absolutely is no other option. Main reasons are optical and build quality, especially the L lenses, compatibility with future camera bodies for longer than 2 years from today, colour consistency, and just trust, peace of mind, or whatever you want to call it. Note: these are my reasons, and my reasons alone.

So, I would, and did, go for the 17-40, even though it is 30 mm short of the Sigma 17-70. From a walkaround lens POV, the focal midpoint based on image enlargement, the 17-40 is a 26 mm zoom lens, or 42 mm AoV equivalent for APS-C, and the 17-70 is a 34 mm zoom lens, or 55 mm AoV equivalent for APS-C. Since I prefer a shorter standard lens, around 40 mm, I prefer the focal range of the 17-40 to that of the 17-70.

Kind regards, Wim

[Gidi Morris]

I'll quote my self on something I said in a previous thread:

One thing to note is- though the 17-55 gives you more than the L there is an important note - the build quality is no where near it!

True, it is rather well built, but if you are in harsh conditions, you cant beat the L quality.
I am an officerin the military and require my lens to be well built. I'm now buying my own 17-40, and came to the decision after borowing a friend's. My dad has the 17-55, and I must admit I love it- it is very sharp, has great constrast and range and has a 2.8 aperture, but it just isn't built as well as the L and if you are a hiker, soldier, climber etc. there just is no other choice over the L - as stated before, it is a tank!


The truth is - it probably isn't worth it for you.
Do you really need this build quality?
And remember the sigma isn't as good as the 17-55, to which I was comparing the 17-40 there...

I do. But you probably are better off saving the cash to buy another lens :D

[casaaviocar]

Build quality, Lens doesn't lengthen for zooming. The Sigma has the Canon beat in range, weight, and it's faster on the wide end, but build quality is definitely not there.

[2gDSM]

I don't know about anyone else, but the build quality is good enough for me. I go running around with it from time to time as well and it does fine. My copy is sharp, focuses accurately, and does not have zoom creep even straight down. The point is, like Gidi Morris said, decide if you really NEED that sort of build quality or not. Sure it's reassuring in your hands but is it a necessity? Does it help you take better pictures? If so then by all means buy lenses for their build quality, but for me and many others non-L build quality is fine.

Hell I'm about to drop the money for a 17-55 IS. Why? It offers great features for events I shoot (weddings). Why not the 24-70 L? It won't help me get the shots I want.