Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 20 May 2007 (Sunday) 19:50
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon 17-40 and Sigma 17-70 comparison

 
Citizensmith
Cream of the Crop
Citizensmith's Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2004
Sacramento, CA USA
May 20, 2007 19:50 |  #1

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

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Citizensmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Citizensmith's Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2004
Sacramento, CA USA
May 20, 2007 19:53 |  #2

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

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Citizensmith's Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2004
Sacramento, CA USA
May 20, 2007 19:56 |  #3

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

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Citizensmith's Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2004
Sacramento, CA USA
May 20, 2007 19:58 |  #4

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

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Citizensmith's Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2004
Sacramento, CA USA
May 20, 2007 20:06 |  #5

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

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Citizensmith's Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2004
Sacramento, CA USA
May 20, 2007 20:14 |  #6

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

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Citizensmith's Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2004
Sacramento, CA USA
May 20, 2007 20:40 |  #7

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

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Citizensmith's Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2004
Sacramento, CA USA
May 20, 2007 20:44 |  #8

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

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Citizensmith's Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2004
Sacramento, CA USA
May 20, 2007 21:05 |  #9

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

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Citizensmith's Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2004
Sacramento, CA USA
May 20, 2007 21:10 |  #10

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.


My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

LOG IN TO REPLY
El ­ Duderino
Goldmember
El Duderino's Avatar
1,921 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Denver, CO
May 20, 2007 21:23 |  #11

Thanks a lot for putting this together.


Nikon D600 | Bower 14mm f/2.8 | Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR | Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR | Nikon 50mm f/1.8G | Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR
500pxexternal link | flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
KevNJ
Senior Member
366 posts
Joined Jun 2005
NJ-USA
May 20, 2007 21:40 |  #12

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


Kevin
Thinking of getting a new gear, not sure if it's the right choice ?
www.RentCameraGear.comexternal linkhttp://www.photography​-on-the.net .../showthread.php?p=1​713215

LOG IN TO REPLY
grinchy
Senior Member
grinchy's Avatar
942 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Central Florida
May 20, 2007 22:26 |  #13

good job on this article..


Body:
40D
Lenses:
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4
Misc:
580EX..Better Beamer..4 & 8gb Ridata 150X CF..Opteka Battery Grips..Kenko 1.4 TC..UV Filters..Lowepro Slingshot..Tripod

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Tony-S's Avatar
9,821 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
May 20, 2007 22:33 |  #14

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.


Gear list
"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.
Zeiss 35/2 for sale.

LOG IN TO REPLY
kennys350d
Senior Member
460 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Arizona
May 21, 2007 00:00 |  #15

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.




:D Got a question..? Need some advice...? Use the search engine.. :D


LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

11,341 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 17-40 and Sigma 17-70 comparison
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00129 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is Mubjo
885 guests, 577 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5577, that happened on Mar 02, 2016