17-40 F4L

I can understand what others are saying about only one stop between f2.8 and f4, and that f4 is all they need for landscapes etc. but to have f2.8 which the Sigma DG lens offers is nothing to complain about.
Of course the big thing is the price, Sigma is about half the cost of Canon.
I believe the new Tamron Di is also well rated.

Brian
Winnipeg

I went the other way 'round, and got the 70-200 f4L first, and am saving for the 17-40 f4L to replace the 300D kit lens. I fear that when I get it the next thing on the "get list" will be something better than the 300D. (mainly because I want to shoot more than 4 continuous frames)

I want I want I want...

Volatile, you are following the exact same path as me

Trust me, the 17 - 40 will not disappoint.

Just 2 weeks ago, I got my 17 40 canon lens.
with the 10D , everyone knows that such wide angle is mandatory for landscape which I do a lot.
this lens is unbelievebly sharp, very low distortion at 17mm, comparing it in the store with the 16-35 , I did some shots @ F4 for both, I wown't say the 17 40 is better,but even with very close analysis at home, at the same aperture, these two lenses are really "' EVEN".
Just to tell you guys, I went there to get the 16-35, did my tests, then came back the day after to get the 17-40, 50mm 1.4 and couple accessories, Ido not regret it.
regards
Khalid

After doing some reading here and elsewhere, I've come to the conclusion that this may be the most beloved lens around, along with the 70-200 F4L.

The 17-40 and 70-200 (F4) are a popular couple............One almost always comes with the other.

Ro1

Oh............and they have a little baby...........the 50 f1.8.

Ro1