17-40 4.0 L or 18-50 2.8 EX

[condyk]

I have decided to go for either a good SH 17-40 4.0 L or a new Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX. Background is this will be my only other lens and will pair with either my current 100-300mm f4 & TCon, a 100-400mm IS L or a 80-400mm OS Sigma for a safari in Namibia. I may just get a 85mm 1.8 Canon too, but don't think I'd need it given the shooting I do. It'll be my general lanscape and walkaround lens. Weight is an issue as is size, but not the final criteria. Flexibility and image quality are most important.

The wide end is less important, as I was always happy with my ex 20-35 2.8 Tokina Pro width, so anything extra is a bonus not a necessity. The 50mm of the Sigma adds value as a walkaround and the 2.8 definately adds a lot of value for indoor or darker city street type shooting. The L would have minimal depreciation if bought SH, but the Sigma I can return/exchange if I need to. Pro's and con's all around.

I haven't seen lots of Sigma shots but what I have seen have been good. I am sure I would also enjoy the Canon from what I have seen. So, I am after user perspectives really on either, particularly perhaps the Sigma as the range seems more suitable for walkaround and the 2.8 I like. Some images from the Sigma would help too. There is another thread at the moment here where people are all saying 'yes, I love my 17-40mm' so no need to repeat that here I guess, unless people also want to add some of their best sample shots. I'm on the fence and they could swing it.

I have an offer in on a Canon L from a trusted seller here, but a new review I just read yesterday of the Sigma is making me wonder if I was right originally in looking to get one of them new instead and so I should forget the SH Canon.

[xuxu1]

Well if the wide end is less important you might consider the 24-70L :!:

Oh no... please, please don´t hit me :-x

ED

[buze]

I've been very happy with the Sigma, I love the colors, it's very sharp in most conditions, barely has any fault for me. It does fringe a f2.8 in extreme conditions, but that could also be sensor bloom in my tests. In all of my "real" shots I've never seen it.
Build quality is excellent, it's very light, and the hood doesn't look like a mexican hat. Oh and it comes with a real protection, not a piece of tissue with string on it (that absolutly amazes me that Canon speaks of "case" for it's L lens while in fact it's a glorified "pouch" ! But then again I'm very grumpy about Canon L today :/)

I also hesitated a LOT over that 17-40, but the sigma is a fraction of the price, and is f2.8..

[xuxu1]

I also hesitated a LOT over that 17-40, but the sigma is a fraction of the price, and is f2.8..

I went for the 17-40L for many reasons.

Very good reviews on the internet.
Very good build at a reasonable price.
Confident that it will still work on future bodys without a need to be rechipped.
I don´t shoot (wideangle) indoors.

Enjoy your Sigma. I´m sure it´s a very fine piece of glass.

Regards
ED

[condyk]

Well if the wide end is less important you might consider the 24-70L :!:


:lol: :lol: Thanks for the suggestion ... no, I wouldn't consider it as too inconsistent judging from a lot of feedback here and I don't need weather proofing. I'd maybe consider the older model which seems a safer bet image quality wide, though cost/benefit still seems poor. I'd go for a Sigma 24-70 2.8 before either to be honest. If it is no longer compatible for some reason in future I can always get another one at the time ... sorry, another two :lol:

Thanks for the 17-40 input. I possibly would use it indoors now and again, which is my main problem with the f4 side ... and the 10mm loss at the longer end too I might just notice more than I think. Build quality is fine on either and the USM advantages would be irrelevant in my usage.

Buse, thanks too ... do you have an image or two? Yes, the Canon 'protection' is mediocre on some of their lenses, but to be honest I never use them so no big deal. Everything kept in my bag wrapped in plastic and does the job. As to price, I would only save around £100 if I went the SH Canon L route, so money not the main issue here.

[buze]

29mm f9 ISO100
http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/ant/S/IMG_4885.JPG

[RikWriter]

I would (and did) get the Canon 17-40L, but I am also intent on later purchasing a 24-70.

[LightRules]

condyk, I think those with the L will say get the L and those with the EX will say get the EX. Do you need the speed (who doesn't?), more range (slightly), less expensive? Then get the EX. Or, do you want the L quality, excellent USM/FTM, FF compatibility? Get the L. If it came down to it for me (even though I sold off both my L and EX), I'd go with the EX for the reasons given. But really you can't go wrong with either. I have some test shots at my site. Best wishes.

[skyphix]

Do you ever see yourself going to a full frame camera? If so, get the 17-40. Thats the only reason Im not getting the 18-50 (I want something I can use on both my film and my digital)

[buze]

Well the resale value is very good, even on Sigma. I might switch to FF in a few years (at least 2, given the progression of the field and the price devaluation on them) but in the meantime I have a nice, lignt, cheap f2.8 to play with... Not a f4 that just might come handy in 2 years...

As a computer guy, I'm used to *massively* more devaluation on any piece of kit. Right now Lens, even the EFS ones are extremly good to buy/sell. They are more like music instruments than technology : if you got a good one and take care of it, it's still a good one for someone else X years later...

[condyk]

... really you can't go wrong with either. I have some test shots at my site.

Ah, I had forgotten your Sigma/Canon showdown ... great :)

Excellent test as usual ... I can't go wrong with either can :lol: The Sigma at 2.8 isn't great but at least comparable at 5-6 and 8: probably better at f8 to my eye. There is a warmer feel to the Sigma which is personal taste: I think I prefer the feel of the Canon.

So, image quality wise it seems either can do a superb job. Maybe the Canon is a tad more contrasty or saturated in colour, but seems a spash too much saturation in one or two images: the Sigma is more even throughout, which I'd probably prefer myself. Even scores I would say!

The question now is about whether the USM (I loved it on my ex 70-200 f4) and non extending barrel of the Canon are preferable: they are of course. Shame no HSM, but it's a luxury I wouldn't really need, as with USM. I'm not going full frame Skyphix, tho' possibly being a DC lens could impact on ease of resale of the Sigma perhaps.

I think given only £100 difference, and the fact that I'm hopefully getting the Canon from a trusted source and minimal depreciation likely, I will go for the Canon if we can strike a deal. The Sigma also isn't in stock at the moment anyway at Jessops, who I would get to price match Bristol Camera's at £299!

Thanks for the image Buze. I really can't go wrong if I get the Sigma either ... Win-Win for me - yippee!!!

Thanks for the help people :cool:

[xuxu1]

:lol: :lol: Thanks for the suggestion ...
What suggestion ??? I was only telling you why i went for the 17-40L. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'd go for a Sigma 24-70 2.8 before either to be honest. If it is no longer compatible for some reason in future I can always get another one at the time ...

Yup. A nice lens but not the one i wanted to have. :) :) :)

Thanks for the 17-40 input.
Your very welcome! As for me.... and i think you got me by now :) , i´m going for the 24-70L in the near future. :cool:

Regards
ED

[condyk]

Enjoy your purchase.

[xuxu1]

Enjoy your purchase.
That i will !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D

ED

[buze]

Bah, you'll secretly regret that extra stop, I tell ya :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

With a filter on it.. the "L" is dust and weather sealed.. may be of some value in Africa.

[condyk]

With a filter on it.. the "L" is dust and weather sealed.. may be of some value in Africa.

Excellent point ... thanks a lot :)

Hmmmm, I feel another question coming on but I will post a new thread to keep everything clean and tidy.

[martook]

condyk: it's a hard decision isn't it? :)
Like I wrote in another thread though, I have the tamron, and that'll be my only lens without USM, it's a tad to slow to focus, and I hate not having FTM. Might sell my 17-40 and get a 16-35 one day, the Sigma is out of the question until they put HSM on it. All of Sigmas EX lenses should have HSM IMHO.