Stick to Canon Lens

I really like the Canon 17-40 F4 L ... No real need for 2.8 doing landscapes (for me). Quite a sharp and contrasty lens.

What landscape pictures do you want to take that you cannot take with either the 10-22 or 17-85 lenses you currently have? You should say why you think you need another landscape lens.

The tilt shift lenses allow you to tilt the plane of focus and correct the perspective for taking landscape photos when your camera is tilted either up or down. If you are really serious about landscape or architectural photography these should be considered, but be prepared to use a tripod and take a fair amount of time setting up each shot. The results can be stunning though.

" ... Sigma and, to a lesser extent ..."

More of a curiosity thing for the PRO's that have been around a while. What's so bad about Sigma? I don't get it. The ones I have get plenty of rough use and work great.

I'm no pro but the real bummer of any Third party lens, Sigma or not, is the fact that it may or may not work on future DSLR (or SLR's) because Sigma must reverse engineer their lens electronics since they don't have any real licensing rights from Canon.

Also many 3rd party lenses, including some Sigma's tend to have noisy AF systems. Many of the upper end Sigma's have HSM, but many of the top-of-the-line EX Sigma's do not--for some folks, SIC, this is a pain at times.

But for many the cost savings (they can be significant) out weight the minuses.

If it was up to me, Contax Zeiss 21mm Distagon f/2.8 for landscape.

Hell, it going to be a challenging combo on a tripod, and impossible hand held. Be better to get the 1.4X instead.

Doc's on the right track, except...if you get the 1.4X instead of the 2X then get the 135L and use the 1.4X with it when wanted.

In the past Sigma has made some pretty bad lenses. Some had so many unsatisfied customers that stores refused to carry Sigma. If a Sigma cost almost the same as a similar featured Canon, most people would choose the Canon. Therefore Sigma has to find gaps in the Canon lens line where they can compete. One gap is between Canon consumer and L lenses. To compete in that gap Sigma has a line of EX lenses that are close to the quality of L, but slightly cheaper. These are generally very good buys for the consumer who wants a superior lens, but also has to watch cost.

Another place Sigma can compete is by producing lenses that are not in the Canon line, such as 50-500, 120-300 f/2.8, 100-300 f/4, etc. Lenses such as these are usually quite good quality, because Sigma does not have to compete based on cost.

Where you have to be careful is where Sigma produces a lens that has the same specs as a Canon consumer lens, so they have to manufacture it so they can sell much cheaper. Generally they do a good job, but sometime they cut too many corners and end up with an inferior product. Unfortunately a few inferior lenses can impact the reputation of the whole line.

I know Sigma quality is good for me as long as it has an EX on it. Even tonight at the GA Aquarium had a PRO ask what lens I was using and when I said Sigma I got the wrinkled lip. Of course I then showed her the shots taken that evening with natural light @ 2.8 along with a few bounced flash shots and she was blown away. She stated it appeared an "L" took the shot. She still shoots a 10D with all L 2.8 glass so I'd say she is a little spoiled

I just hope the Sigma EX's hold up for a long time to come.

Sigma works well for those of us who want a great quality lens with a solid build, but just don't have the bucks to shell out for the L. Thank God for the alternatives!!!!

good to hear, since I just purchased one from another member should be here in the next week or so!

i've only used canon lenses at this point. I've heard a lot of great things about the sigma lenses, though it seems like they have more quality control issues than canon. I know a few photographer friends who have used Tamron in the past when they were short on funds, and regretted it. The quality just wasnt there. If you cant afford canon, it seems like sigma is the way to go.

I am looking into an inexpensive Tokina super wide angle though, which has gotten good reviews and should suit me until I can afford to upgrade (the body and flash come first though...!)

ScottE says it well.

Sigma's trying to make more a push with a lens like the 120-300 f/2.8 which can be very useful for sports to maybe overtake some of the market for a 300 2.8.

Also, with the current pros who have been doing stuff for years, they don't really like change. But then for pros, sigma hasn't really focused on them that much, because the first party will generally beat them.

Digital age has defintely benefited the 3rd party though and slowly they are able to pick up market share. They kind of have that chip on their shoulder as being overlooked, so they do have to put out better lens that beat out Canon's consummer level lens, generally.