For FF, Sigma 12-24 or Canon 17-40L

Before you even THINK this has to do with me, it doesn't. I do need a question answered though, if possible. Out of these two lenses, which would be better for portrait photography? Forget about focal length, based completely on IQ, which of these two lenses would be better suited for portrature. Either is great for landscapes, with the sigma having the edge in the wide field, but which would you say would be better optically for portrait work? And if you could take it a step further, outside of portraiture, which lens would you rather have and why?

Most people will say the Canon as the Sigma, and I have it, needs to be stopped down to at least f11 before it gets sharp as it is soft wider open.

Oh it's soft wide open? Thats a shame.

If you can even imagine... 12mm on a full frame is BOUND to be soft... and it's a ZOOM. Hahaha. I wouldn't even worry about sharpness at that focal length. If you need the width, you need the width. There is no substitute. But have you ever seen 17mm on full frame? Wow... it's breathtaking. I think it should be wide enough. Besides, the 17-40L is a mighty sharp bugger!

KevC wrote in post #3077637
If you can even imagine... 12mm on a full frame is BOUND to be soft... and it's a ZOOM. Hahaha. I wouldn't even worry about sharpness at that focal length. If you need the width, you need the width. There is no substitute. But have you ever seen 17mm on full frame? Wow... it's breathtaking. I think it should be wide enough. Besides, the 17-40L is a mighty sharp bugger!

And with UWA, most people are quick to judge. But the smart ones actually realize the DOF, and how much is actually in the picture.

The both have advantages. Over time you will probably want both....if you are a WA person. So your decision is which to get first

Easy 17-40 since the sigma 12-24 is soft...way soft.

Quality of results speaks volume...

if i were to get one of these, it would purely be for WS work. nobody shoots proper portraits with UWAs .

and secondly, getting a softer lens *may* work in favour of portraits in this case.

Unless you want to enhance features like large noses or what have you, why would you want an UWA for portraiture???

Neither, unless you're doing groups. In which case the 17-40.

If you're doing single-person portraits, then neither one. You need to think longer. IQ is moot here.

Well my friend was thinkin single shots, where the subject is in focus and then theres a wide FOV around the subject blurred. Guess he's probably better off with a 24-70.

24-70 would probably be something more along the lines of what he's looking for. Even 17mm on my 300D(28mm on FF) is still too wide to take portrait shots.

august23 wrote in post #3079982
Well my friend was thinkin single shots, where the subject is in focus and then theres a wide FOV around the subject blurred. Guess he's probably better off with a 24-70.

He would need something like the 35L shot wide open. It's difficult to blur the background with wide angle lenses, so a super large aperture would be necessary.

Neither - this is what an UWA does to a face:

16mm

neither for portrait.

i'd buy the 17-40 without a doubt (unless you like the warped view as seen in the top pic in the above post).

17-40 is more useful because you can use the long length at 35-40 for other stuff (non portrait) and still have UWA.