Canon 17-40 and Sigma 17-70 comparison

[Citizensmith]

I own a 17-40 (on a 300D). I like it, its a solid lens as you'd expect from an L. My only problem is the 40 part as I sometimes find that short for a walkaround lens.

At work I just got a 17-70 (on a 400D). I'm still getting used to it, but as it is something I'd considered I figured I'd run a few comparisons.

First, the stuff you can't take photos of.

Autofocus.
The 17-40 is silent and deadly. It finds focus quickly and makes no fuss about it. The Canon has full time manual focus.
The 17-70 is fairly quiet and pretty quick. It's still good, definitely good enough, just not the same as the 17-40.
17-40 1: 17-70 0

Price.
The 17-70 is a lot cheaper. Both come with hoods but the Canon hood is for full frame. Small sensor users may consider getting a different hood for the 17-40.
17-40 1: 17-70 1

Build.
The 17-70 is smaller which I would consider a good thing, but it really doesn't have the build of the 17-40. Both have a non-rotating front, but the Sigma extends, while the Canon does not. The Sigma feels solid, but the zoom ring is overly tight and mounting the lens on the camera seems to need more of a twist than any other lens I've used. I'll call this one a draw, better build vs smaller size, as the Sigma still has good build and the Canon isn't huge.
17-40 2: 17-70 2

[Citizensmith]

Close Focus.
This was a clear win for the Sigma. While the photos don't look that different the Canon was at its limit. The Sigma would have gone close if I'd taken the hood off.
The Canon image is first.
One other notable difference is a slight warm cast to the sigma. Or a blue cast to the Canon. Hard to tell, but I'd say the Sigma shot looks warm.
17-40 2: 17-70 3

[Citizensmith]

General detail.
This next shot was to look at General detail. In reality this should be a whole slew of tests but I have neither the time or the skill to do it accurately. In these two shots its pretty much a wash, with the Sigma again having a warm look.
Again, Canon first.
17-40 2: 17-70 3

[Citizensmith]

Corner sharpness.
From the last image we have a crop from the bottom left corner. The Sigma while good is a little softer and shows some haze and color fringing the is absent from the Canon image.
17-40 3: 17-70 3

[Citizensmith]

Aperture - Maximum
The Sigma is an f/2.8-4. The Canon is an f/4.
While the Sigma gets up in maximum fairly fast it still have a definite advantage.
17-40 3: 17-70 4

Aperture - Using the lens wide open at 17mm.
Just a small image for this as it shows very little.
Wide open (f/4) the Canon showed no notable vignetting.
Wide open (f/2.8 ) the Sigma showed very slight vignetting. Nothing concerning and fairly hard to see, but it was there.
A draw because the vignetting on the Sigma was too insignificant to hold against it.
17-40 4: 17-70 5

[Citizensmith]

Zoom Range.
The Sigma has the whole 40-70 (64-112) range on it that the Canon doesn't.
17-40 4: 17-70 6

Distortion.
Both seem about the same, and wide open neither are great. Of course you can't expect miracles from a wide angle.
17-40 5: 17-70 7

[Citizensmith]

Flares.
Both lenses have well controlled lens flare. The Sigma had some slight flare, notable principally in the opposite corner to the sun. Moving the sun just out of frame had little effect on the flare, just changing its shape. The Canon had flare with the sun just outside the frame, although marginally better controlled than the Sigma. Surprisingly there was no visible flare from the Canon with the sun in the shot. Point to the Canon.
FWIW neither lens had a filter on for these shots.
17-40 6: 17-70 7

[Citizensmith]

How wide can you go.
Not much in it, not really enough to make it worth a point, but the Sigma (second image) is definitely wider.
17-40 7: 17-70 8

[Citizensmith]

Sharpness.
Lastly some overall shots. Please note that the sigma image is incorrect. The wide part was f/2.8 not f/4 as noted.
The Canon is very good. Sharp wide open so f/8 doesn't make enough difference to consider important.
The Sigma is good. On 100% crop its fairly soft wide open but that is gone by f/8.
At f/8 there was nothing between them. However I'm going to give the point to Canon for wide open performance. I know that sounds unfair as the Sigma was at 2.8, but if you've got it you better be able to use it, and the Canon had the Sigma beat at f/4.
17-40 8: 17-70 8

Color and Contrast.
To be honest I really couldn't see much difference. Both were very good on the wide shots. The Sigma did seem to have that slight warm cast, but it was only notable on white surface. Draw.
17-40 9: 17-70 9

[Citizensmith]

And the final scores. Equal. Ah well.

Take your pick. The Canon is more expensive but you get your moneys worth. The Sigma has better range, but where they overlap the Canon does it better. It's all a wash really. Anyone want to send me a 17-55 and 17-85 so I can check them out too.

And, to be honest, I think I was hoping the Sigma would win. I really do find the 17-40 range too limiting and wouldn't mind an excuse to swap to something else. This was me seeing if the 17-70 would be a good choice. It's a nice lens as its reviews had implied, but offers no overall benefit vs the 17-40. My other solution (Keep the 17-40 and add a 5D and 24-105) is a little expensive.

Oh, and as someone is bound to make the point. Yes, I know the 17-40 is a full frame lens and the 17-70 isn't. This review was done on a 400D and so reflects just the results a small frame sensor user could expect.

[El Duderino]

Thanks a lot for putting this together.

[KevNJ]

Very nice write up, thats for the time put into it. Was a good read.

[grinchy]

good job on this article..

[Tony-S]

I sold my 17-40L for the 17-70. It was a bit soft wide open, but sharpened up nicely at f/5.6. It's saturation was remarkable - certainly better than the Sigma. Had I planned to migrate to a full-frame camera one day, I would have kept it. It is, afterall, designed for such cameras.

[kennys350d]

My cousin has the 17-40L, and I was tempted to buy it as my first L lens, but the Sigma was to hard to refuse, so I went w/Sigma.

[etaV8R]

Great comparison. Now get a 5D and do ff so I know what to expect out of my camera w/o renting a lot of lenses.
I still cant make my mind up.

[DerekI]

Thanks very much for your time , this review was very timely and I appreciate that.

I was considering getting the L , but I did not think it would be significantly better than my EF-S17-85IS.

I maybe better buy an EF-S10-22 instead , but afraid to get too many EF-S lenses(EF-S17-85,Ef-S18-55,Ef-S60) .

I am agonized over it .

do you want to compare the L with the EF-S17-55 or 10-22?

I will try to play with the L at my local store, hopefully , they let me do some comparison between the 17-85 and the 17-40L.

I hate to say but maybe there are no better lenses than the EF-S17-55Is in term of absolute IQ in real use.

If the EF-S had a bit better build quality, there is no reason not take it , though........... just the dust issue at that kind of price ............what should I do?

the Ef-24-105 is not as sharp as the Ef-S17-55 , I do have neither of them but my siter has had both and she would sell the L and keep the 17-55........

Well , it is not mine any way, thanks alot and take care .........Oh, as for your wanting to get a 5d with an ef24-105L ,I think you better get the 17-55IS instead because the L is not as sharp as the EF-S and the IS on the EF-S is a bit more effective (cause it's the latest IS).

[Samdiver74]

Citizensmith
Great write up, very timely with all the pics etc, you got the point accross.
Excellent.



Oh, as for your wanting to get a 5d with an ef24-105L ,I think you better get the 17-55IS instead because the L is not as sharp as the EF-S and the IS on the EF-S is a bit more effective (cause it's the latest IS).

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS won't fit on a 5D, but I have heard that this is an excellent lens and I am too, also stuck between a rock and a hard place as I am thinking full frame in the long term so I am steering more towards the 24-105 lens.
as far as the 24-105 it is definitely a great combo on a 5D.

[Citizensmith]

Thanks for the feedback folks. Now its time to go get me a 5D :)

[_aravena]

Where does thre 2.8 change on the 17-70?

[Citizensmith]

Where does thre 2.8 change on the 17-70?

f/2.8 @ 17mm
f/3.2 @ 20mm
f/3.5 @ 24mm
f/4.0 @ 35mm
f/4.5 @ 55mm+

[SBWorking]

Not exactly on topic, but I too was thinking about going full frame before I got the 17-55 IS. I'm not thinking about it any more.

[condyk]

Top job. I liked my 17-40mm a lot ... one of the best bang per buck L's ... and I changed it for the exact reason you mention; not long enough for walkaround. My experience, while not at all of the depth you have done, does mirror what you say. I think the L is 'nicer' overall but the differences are very minor in image terms and I could shoot nice pictures with either, so the Sigma lasted as my 'standard zoom' until I got the 5D. Added a 24-105mm and I have the best of both ;-)

[Swift]

Thanks for the article, went for the Sigma :).

[versedmb]

Thanks for doing this comparison.

The Sigma is a good lens. I have noticed the "warmer" colors of the Sigma as c/w my Canon lenses as well. Overall, I like it though. The USM of Canon is much faster; the Sigma definitley hunts more than my 60mm macro or 10-22....



It's nice to be able to take close-ups like this though w/o changing lenses....
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1142/829619906_f2c4ef35fe.jpg?




I use it mostly for landscapes....
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1346/1177437152_b4b67f0c27.jpg

[TxDietwater]

Great review, exactly what I needed.

May be a stupid question, but what did you mean by a hood specifically for full frame cameras. How do hoods for crop cameras differ than those for full frame cameras?

[sadatk]

Great review. I'd like to see another except with the addition of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro. ;)

[ed rader]

Great review, exactly what I needed.

May be a stupid question, but what did you mean by a hood specifically for full frame cameras. How do hoods for crop cameras differ than those for full frame cameras?


when using an EF lens on a crop camera you can use a deeper hood to afford more flare protection without vignetting.

e.g., i use a 17-55 hood on my 17-40L on my 1d Markl III, which has a 1.3 crop sensor.

ed rader

[Citizensmith]

Like Ed said, a crop camera would let you use a tighter hood. The 17-40 hood is designed to cover a 17mm field of view without vignetting. If you put that lens on a crop camera you are actually getting a 28-64 field of view. If there was a lens hood that was designed for 28mm lenses that fit the size and mount of the front of the 17-40 it would be perfect. Instead people either go with the 17-55 hood, the 24 1.4 L hood, or (as I've done) just leave the 17-40 hood on and except its not giving quite the cover it maybe could.

[_aravena]

Great review. I'd like to see another except with the addition of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro. ;)

But the difference with those are they are faster so kinda only compete with each other. They all serve diff purposes too. the 17-40 is a solid performer from what I hear on the 5D and for landscapers more than anything else almost. Also, the Sigmas and I think the Tammy won't go on the 5D.

[Mike55]

General detail.
This next shot was to look at General detail. In reality this should be a whole slew of tests but I have neither the time or the skill to do it accurately. In these two shots its pretty much a wash, with the Sigma again having a warm look.
Again, Canon first.
17-40 2: 17-70 3


Look at the "pop" in the edges and colors on the cockpit canopy. Classic 17-40L characteristic.

[sai-gon-xua]

thanks all :D

[ashleynaugust]

Nice Review! Thank you-I'm on the brink of getting the 17-70 and this made me feel even more sure about it.

Thanks!

[sai-gon-xua]

Thanks a lot for putting this together

[Keduf]

Great review! I've been torn between the 18-50 and this lens, but think I'll go with this as all reviews I've seen are favourable and everyone who owns this lens seems to love it..Thanks heaps!