12-24 sigma vs 17-40

i have a fantastic 1d markIII

with these lens:

-35L

-70-200 f 2.8 L

i need a WA zoom ...for landscape, trip exc....

whic is the best option in your opinion??

---the third is to sell 35L for A 16-35....but i don't know...i think is better to ad a 17-40 or 12-24

Both work well on the 1.3 body, but the 12 mm end of the Sigma gets a bit of fish eye style distortion, but there is software that can more or less correct it. Use the "more information" in the photo info area to get my actual FL for the shots in these albums to get an idea of what suits you. First album is the 17-40 L
http://picasaweb.googl​e.com/cicopo/TheCozume​lPalace
This one is with the 12-24, but there are a few shots with a 20D / 18-200 but they should be obvious.
http://picasaweb.googl​e.com …zumel?authkey=j​jummaTkEmE

and what about sell my 35L for a 16-35 plus 580exII (IF I decude to add a 12-24 or 17-40 i'll buy 580 later)

I have both and they are really different beasts. The 17-40 is a wide angle lens whereas the 12-24 is a really really really really wide angle. Both are fine optics, interestingly the 17-40 appears to have more distortion at the wide end than the 12-24, probably due to the larger zoom range in this lens.

When using the 12-24 you need to be careful to avoid flare and objects at the side of the frame will appear distorted due to effect of the extreme wide angle. The other issue with this lens is you will end up with a good record over time of your feet, your tripod feet and your shadow.

Given the lenses you have at the moment the 17-40 would appear to fill more of a gap and unless you specifically need wider than 17 I think this would be your best option.

The 5mm difference may not appear to be too much however at the wide end 5mm is a big difference and 17-40 will be more generally useful than the 12-24.

Also note that if you are using it for landscape the 12-24 is very limited in the way you use filters, basically you have to use an adapter which will vignette below about 16 mm so you will loose the ability to use a polariser/grad or loose the wide angle advantage of the lens.

Also check out http://www.prime-junta.net …ma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html , he calls it practically a prime and this is a fair description of how I use it.

freeheeler wrote in post #6763070
i have a fantastic 1d markIII

with these lens:

-35L

-70-200 f 2.8 L

i need a WA zoom ...for landscape, trip exc....

whic is the best option in your opinion??

---the third is to sell 35L for A 16-35....but i don't know...i think is better to ad a 17-40 or 12-24

16-35L II ..... my main short lens on my 1d mark III .

ed rader

cicopo wrote in post #6763173
Both work well on the 1.3 body, but the 12 mm end of the Sigma gets a bit of fish eye style distortion.

on a 1.3 it's not fishy, it's just

Jim Barnes wrote in post #6764124
really really really really wide angle.

I've owned both, and on a 1.3, 1.6 and FF... I'm also a UWA whore, so take my $.02 for what it's worth. To me, the 12-24 is the UWA zoom of choice on a 1.3 cropped body. No, it's not as good optically as the 17-40L but it's the only option that is truely wide.

For me, once I went FF, it's IQ became a bit of an issue and I was only using it at 12mm... I'm considering getting once again, for that crazy wide, but not FE effect, but it's not an every day lens on FF. I've also owned a 16-35II, but it's no better optically than the 17-40, so unless you need the stop, I wouldn't bother.

12mm on a 1.6 cropper

i think (i don't know if is wrong or not), that i don't need the 16-35 cause i can shot at 1.4 with the supersharp 35L...
...and i also think that is not a good idea to sell the prime wor the 16-35...

What i need, is a landscape and WA lens...

..with the 17-40 i have a WA-standard zoom on 1.3x...also have better flare resistance and a good wide angle focal lenght...like 22mm eq. on 1.3x

...with the sigma i have like 15-16 mm wide angle...so an ultra wide angle zoom...
with this option i have a wa zoom and a standard prime....

really don't know...both work fine on 1d crop....

I agree 100% on the fast prime -vs- 2.8 zoom bit. For me 2.8 isn't enough faster than 4.0 in terms of zoom speeds to make them worth the weight or cost. If I need speed, 2.8 isn't enough anyway. If I could live off just 2.8, sure, that'd be rad, but otherwise I love my f4 zooms for travel and my fast primes as needed.

As for which UWA zoom to choose, I'd suggest you goto a local shop that has them (or rent). You need to really see 12mm -vs- 17mm through the viewfinder and the resulting images to see if it's for you. I would get the 12mm on a 1.3, no second thought. But that's me, we're all different.

this is a good idea...

your shots at 12mm are fantastic!!! really nice the perspective of the 12mm on 1.3crop

worst case, if you have room on a CC for it, buy both a return the one you don't want. I'd only do that as a last option, but yeah....