oh my god another lens decision post

[evilenglishman]

I'm looking for something wide. I would prefer something around 14mm - no fisheye. I have the following list (along with scores from FM site reviews):

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM. £569.95 FM Rating: 4.6
Sigma AF EX 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical. £559.95 FM Rating: 4.1
Sigma AF EX 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 DG. Price: £479.95 FM Rating: 3.9
Sigma AF EX 15-30 mm f/3.5-4.5 DG. Price: £399.95 FM Rating: 4.3
Sigma AF EX 20-40 mm f/2.8 DG. Price: £369.95 FM Rating: 4.7
Sigma AF EX 17-35 mm f/2.8-4.0 DG IF HSM. Price: £339.95 FM Rating: 2.6
Tamron SP AF17-35 mm f/2.8-4 Di (IF). Price: £329.95 FM Rating: 4.3



My current conclusions/reservations are:
1. I would buy the canon L but I'm not sure if 17mm is short enough and if F4 is fast enough.
2. The sigma 14mm looks good - but is it worth the same value as an L lens. what happens when I upgrade? will it still work?? This is true of all the lenses except the canon. Has HSM. Geletin filters :(
3. Sigma 12-24 seems perfect but also a bit slow, has HSM.
4. Sigma 15-30 nearly £100 less than the 12-24 and is faster - what is wrong with it??? No HSM and uses Gelatin filters :(
5. Sigma 20-40 has a high score, is cheap and fast - but is 20mm a big difference to 14mm with the crop factor etc? No HSM.
6. Sigma 17-35mm - poor score with almost the same range as the canon.
7. Tamron - Never owned one but I'm not sure I would ever part with £330 for one when the sigma is practically identical.

The canon 14mmL which I think would be perfect is way out of my budget which leaves me with the choices above. I like the idea of the canon but I'm not sure how great the difference between 14mm and 17mm is (yes I've looked at pbase samples - but they only show good images for any/every lens)

My main issue is the quality of the image. Secondary is Distortion - i want a small amount - but not like a fisheye.

any thoughts??? I've gone over this for quite a while now and never come to a conclusion, I just go round and round:
The canon is L, the sigma is shorter and faster, the sigma 12-24 is even shorter and a zoom, but its slower, the canon will have better image quality but its 17mm etc etc :?

help!

[RikWriter]

I debated long and hard between the Canon 17-40 and the Sigma 12-24 and ultimately went with the Sigma because I needed the wide angle for landscapes, and slow is fine for most landscapes. It's a very good lens, very sharp and crisp when stepped down for the purpose for which I bought it.

[RichardtheSane]

What sort of wide photography do you do and with what camera?

I have the 17-40 and it is quite wide... but on the 10D it doesn't feel w i d e... just quite wide...

[eric1]

it's all in how and what you shoot. i too looked at the Sigma 12-24 vs. the Canon 17-40. i chose the Canon. i liked the picture quality a little more than the 12-24. the AF on the 17-40 is among the fastest you'll find, and it has very good close focus abillity. i don't need super wide, and it has just the right amount of distortion (for me). perspective is correctable in PS.

[roanjohn]

I was in the same boat...........and ended up with the Canon 17-40 f4 L.

...........never looked back since.

Truly an amazing lens.

Ro1

[defordphoto]

The 17-40L is the only lens that visibly changed into an entirely different lens when I got the MKII. It was dramatic.

But, it still shines on the 10D.

[jgbeam]

If you need wide and fast, get the 16-35 f/2.8L. If you need w-i-d-e and don't need speed, the Sigma 12-24 at half the price does quite nicely. For architectural exteriors, the 12-24 is wide and fast enough.

http://www.imagevenue.com/host/web1/b6ed4_nutmeg.jpg

I was backed up against another building for this shot. I like the distortion in this case, but the clouds reflecting off the glass curtainwall are what does it for me.

Jim

[evilenglishman]

Thanks for the info so far :)

The lens is for shooting models with. :shock:
I am looking to shoot in a stylistic way - hence why I want some distortion. I'll mainly be using natural light which I think affects my "need for speed" a bit.
The 16-35L is out of my budget range too :( I will end up with one of those in my list.

jgbeam - that is exactly the kind of distortion I'm looking for - I like the way the image "wraps around".

The Sigma 14mm is essentially what I want. It's wide, fast and has HSM.
The only things holding me back from it are the "futureproof" issues and the fact that its almost the same price as the canon.
I do believe the canon might be too slow for its purpose - unless its as sharp at f4 as the other lenses.
It might also be a bit too perfect with regard to distortion.

I read a few days ago (I don't remember where) that differences in mm are a lot more extreme with wide angles - so the difference between 14mm and 17mm could be quite significant.

With that in mind I'll revise my list to the following 3:

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L. £569.95 FM Rating: 4.6 (67 reviews-recommended by 96%)
Sigma AF EX 14mm f/2.8 Asp. £559.95 FM Rating: 4.1 (8 reviews-recommeded by 100%)
Sigma AF EX 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 Price: £479.95 FM Rating: 3.9 (12 reviews-recommeded by 83%)
Sigma AF EX 15-30 mm f/3.5-4.5 Price: £399.95 FM Rating: 4.3 (24 reviews-recommended by 83%)

[CoolToolGuy]

Check out the Tamron 14mm f2.8. Under $1000 new, and KEH has one used for $665. Focus motor is a bit noisy, but otherwise a fine piece. Much cheaper than the Canon 14mm.

[evilenglishman]

Check out the Tamron 14mm f2.8. Under $1000 new, and KEH has one used for $665. Focus motor is a bit noisy, but otherwise a fine piece. Much cheaper than the Canon 14mm.

:shock: :shock: That lens is £800 in the uk and waaay out of my budget - I don't think I would ever pay more for a tamron lens over a sigma lens when they have identical specs.

these are my options:
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L. £569.95 FM Rating: 4.6 (67 reviews-recommended by 96%)
Sigma AF EX 14mm f/2.8 Asp. £559.95 FM Rating: 4.1 (8 reviews-recommeded by 100%)
Sigma AF EX 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 Price: £479.95 FM Rating: 3.9 (12 reviews-recommeded by 83%)
Sigma AF EX 15-30 mm f/3.5-4.5 Price: £399.95 FM Rating: 4.3 (24 reviews-recommended by 83%)

[Olegis]

I like my Sigma 15-30, it produces very nice wide angle pictures. The AF motor is a bit slow and loud, but it definitely was not a deal braker for me. The lens is very nicely built, it's sturdy enough for my applications - landscape, architechture and occasional street candids. But hear the best part - these lenses are pretty cheap used, so you can get one for a really good price. I got mine for less than $450.
A few samples that I've shot with this lens :

http://www.pbase.com/olegis/streets_ta&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/olegis/gay_parade__tel_aviv_2004&page=all

[evilenglishman]

I like this image a lot: http://www.pbase.com/image/31435907

did you have the lens hood on when you shot that? A few people mentioned a problem with flare on the FM reviews

[gcogger]

:shock: :shock: That lens is £800 in the uk and waaay out of my budget - I don't think I would ever pay more for a tamron lens over a sigma lens when they have identical specs.


Why? While it wouldn't make a big difference, I'd probably slightly prefer a Tamron over a Sigma due to the occasional necessity for re-chipping Sigma lenses. There seems to be nothing in it when it comes to build quality.

[evilenglishman]

why?

1. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that tamron lenses are sub sigma lenses.
2. It is £250 more than the sigma with the same specs - I've seen a review and the edges of the image are pretty dodgy on the tamron. Not what I want.
3. If I had £800 to spend I would scrape up the extra and buy something like the 16-35mm f/2.8 L etc.

[roanjohn]

why?

1. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that tamron lenses are sub sigma lenses.


Hmmm...........that depends.
Sigma gives you more selection from the wide end to the tele-end, thus making it more popular.
Tamron's DI lenses are pretty good.........not as much choices, but thier 28-75 f2.8 and both thier macro primes are pretty well regarded.

Canon is still the way to go in terms of future compatibility and resale value.

Ro1

[RikWriter]

:shock: :shock: That lens is £800 in the uk and waaay out of my budget - I don't think I would ever pay more for a tamron lens over a sigma lens when they have identical specs.


Why? While it wouldn't make a big difference, I'd probably slightly prefer a Tamron over a Sigma due to the occasional necessity for re-chipping Sigma lenses. There seems to be nothing in it when it comes to build quality.

The rechipping is only an issue with older Sigma lenses.

[Olegis]

I like this image a lot: http://www.pbase.com/image/31435907

did you have the lens hood on when you shot that? A few people mentioned a problem with flare on the FM reviews

The lens hood is built in on this lens and therefore cannot be removed. This particular lens has a few flare-handling problems, but you can control them pretty well - with the palm of your hand for example.

[gcogger]

why?

1. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that tamron lenses are sub sigma lenses.
2. It is £250 more than the sigma with the same specs - I've seen a review and the edges of the image are pretty dodgy on the tamron. Not what I want.
3. If I had £800 to spend I would scrape up the extra and buy something like the 16-35mm f/2.8 L etc.

I don't think it's possible to say that Sigma is better than Tamron or vice versa. Tamron make lenses that some people regard as 'Canon L' quality (17-35 and 28-75 zooms), and Sigma cannot compete with those. Similarly, Sigma have longer zooms (70-200, 100-300) that some people regard as 'Canon L' quality, and Tamron cannot compete with those.

You have to compare the makes (and that includes Canon and Tokina) on the basis of specific lenses - they all make fantastic lenses, and they all make poor ones.

[dschwartz69]

sorry for the newbie post or if obvious to most of you.

I've seen "fm reviews" referenced several times. Can someone please enlighten me?

Again, sorry if terribly obvious - my coffee quotient is still a little low today.

thanks,

[evilenglishman]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php

[CoolToolGuy]

why?

1. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that tamron lenses are sub sigma lenses.
2. It is £250 more than the sigma with the same specs - I've seen a review and the edges of the image are pretty dodgy on the tamron. Not what I want.


1. I tried the Tamron new, and I liked it. It took a lot for me to go non-Canon. When I saw a used one for a good price I jumped on it. I hear good things about individual Tamron lenses, just as I hear good things about individual Sigma lenses. If you just won't buy Tamron, so be it. I won't buy Sigma.

2. Where did you see the review? Was it reviewed with film or digital? If the edges of the Tamron are dodgy on the edges of a 1.6 crop, it is probably a pretty poor lens. If, however, it was tested on a film camera it may not apply. I haven't done any excruciating tests with my Drebel, but I like what I see from what I've used it for. The review I saw gave it a 4.2 out of 5. The Sigma got a 4.5, but these are all user reviews.
http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Primes/Tamron/PRD_83605_3111crx.aspx

Have Fun,

[evilenglishman]

this is the review I read: http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html

the author thinks its a great lens but looking at the 100% crops I think it looks lousy. It isn't on my list.


Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L. £569.95 FM Rating: 4.6 (67 reviews-recommended by 96%)
Sigma AF EX 14mm f/2.8 Asp. £559.95 FM Rating: 4.1 (8 reviews-recommeded by 100%)
Sigma AF EX 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 Price: £479.95 FM Rating: 3.9 (12 reviews-recommeded by 83%)
Sigma AF EX 15-30 mm f/3.5-4.5 Price: £399.95 FM Rating: 4.3 (24 reviews-recommended by 83%)

Could anyone with the canon do me a favour and shoot a full length shot of a person using extreme perspective at f4? Like close to their face with their feet still in the photo?
This would help me out a lot - I have no possibility to test out any of the lenses myself :cry:

pretty please :wink:

[evilenglishman]

ooops I just noticed i was looking at a tokina 14mm - my appologies. I'm still not interesting in the tamron at that price though. :wink: