Which wide angle should I get?

[CyberPet]

OK, this is the case:

A friend of mine is selling off some of his gear and I've got first dibs on it. He has two wide angle and I'm thinking of either or.

1. Canon 20-35 L
2. Sigma 15-30

I know that the Canon is tac sharp at the widest angle wide open, but the Sigma has a bit more "widness" to it. I'm of course in L-fever and would love to have another L-lens. But I wonder if the Sigma would not be the better one to get more wide angles, even if it's not as fast as the Canon.

The other lenses I have is in my signature and my wish is to replace the kit-lens.

[AjP]

Petra, if you can get 16-35 2.8L you will love it, I shot this weekend a wedding and use this lense once in a while, oooooo myyyyyy goshhhhhh AWESOME, sharp, extremely fast focus even in low light, definately gonna buy this one for myself

[CyberPet]

I can't aford the 16-35, sorry. The 20-35 and the Sigma is the closest ones I can get, and these are prices right (both used, same guy that I got the 80-200 from). The 20-35 is a f-2.8 lens btw.
http://www.pcphotoreview.com/Channels/PhotographyReview/images/products/Product_84501.jpg

I'm offered to pay $512 USD for the Canon and $387 USD for the Sigma. (the 16-35 is almost $2,000 USD here in Sweden).

[Citizensmith]

Another big difference is the the Canon is f/2.8 and the Sigma f/3.5-4.5 (or something like that). I'd probably be going for the Canon and keeping the kit lens for its extra bit of wideness.

The 20-35 L is a great lens, quality better than the 17-35 and as good as the 16-35 and 17-40.

[Andy_T]

20-35, no question.

I read reviews that put it on par with the 16-35 as far as image quality is concerned (better than its successor, the 17-35/2.8 )

PS: I think that the lens in the image you linked is NOT the 20-35/2.8 L, but rather the 20-35/3.5-4.5 non-L.

Best regards,
Andy

[Citizensmith]

yeah, Andy is correct. The lack of a red ring should be the giveaway. The 20-35 L looks a lot like this.

[martook]

Petra,
since it's a friend of yours, maybe you can borrow both for a short while and test them?
I'm not sure, but I don't think that's one of the best L-lenses out there... and that Sigma is supposed to be a decent lens if I'm not mistaken. Only 1000:- difference in price, but 5mm makes a huge difference when shooting. Your intended usage will also make a difference, maybe you need the f/2.8 ?

Edit: Actually, the 20-35 seems to be total crap wide open, so maybe you should think of it as a f/4 lens...

[CyberPet]

I just wonder if I'm going to miss the 18 mm much from the Kit. doesn't feel right to just put it on for those 2 mm. I'm thinking of how many meters back I'd have to back-up for 20 mm. :D

The 20-35 is the ones I've drooling over for a while since my friend did hint he was going to sell it. And I am first in line for any of them. And who doesn't want another red lined lens? Decisions, decisions.

And yes, you're correct about the image, it was in b/w so I wasn't sure which one it was.

Here's his image of it:

http://www.jannisnet.com/rensning/thumbnails/canon20-35L.jpg

Btw, martook... you can look at http://www.jannisnet.com/rensning/ and see if there's something you like to have (BESIDE the two wide angle lenses I have dibs on). :D

[martook]

Ooooh, don't tempt me! I just got a 300/f4, and together with all the bills this month, I've got about $200 left for the rest of this month... only 26 days to go *sigh*

If I win the lottery on saturday I'll buy those Zeiss lenses though ;)

Edit: Already have the 17-40 by the way, so I wont buy your 20-35!
Edit2: Got it a month ago and I haven't even tried the 17-40 yet, so I don't think another wideangle is what I need :D

[LightRules]

I have no hands-on experience with either lens, but Adam-T does. His opinions are highly regarded in various forums:

"The 15-30EX is a mechanical nighmare - it has a very bulgey damage prone front end, has that AWFUL "DF" focus ring setup, terribly slow AF, is bulky and the filter business is pretty much useless...but optically a good sample is excellent wide open even on a 1DS, it leaves ALL the 14mm F2.8s for dead for across the frame sharpness linearity and sharpness overall at F3.5.... the only pitfalls with this lens optically are 1:- QC, well it's a Sigma Right?, some copies have soft sides though it suffers far less than the 12-24 or the 14mm F2.8 - 2:- Flare compared with the 17mm Zooms though 10X better than the 14mm primes - 3:- Yellow cast, Shoot RAW ;)"

[CyberPet]

So the Canon it is then.... another red stripe in the signature. :D

[Citizensmith]

So the Canon it is then.... another red stripe in the signature. :D

Congratulations on the new lens. :)

Well, at least when you pick it up.

[CyberPet]

Thanks!! Now I just need to get my tax refund (should be arriving shortly) and I can pay the guy. I have paid him about 1/5 of the amount already (he owed me some money for some prints I made).