Trading up, or stepping backwards...

I've had my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for a few years, and I feel like it's time to step up to another L lens, I'm really looking at the 17-40mm f/4L. I've looked at it a few times, but knew I had a wide angle in my bag, so it was just another purchase. I feel like I should be looking at a longer lens, like a 300mm or 400mm, but I'm looking forward to parting ways with it and getting all full frame lenses to go with my 1D Mk III, even if the vignette looks kind of cool, it's not practical for what I want to shoot.

Sports, landscapes, street, event.

Thank you for the help.

You know, the 17-40 really isn't very sharp. So if that's going to be a deal breaker for you, it's something to consider.

What about 16-35 II if you can justify the cost, and complete your f/2.8 zoom set up.

eb314 wrote in post #11696018
You know, the 17-40 really isn't very sharp. So if that's going to be a deal breaker for you, it's something to consider.

But versuses the 10-20? I'd go with the 16-35 II, but I wish it didn't have the 82mm filter. Weak argument, I know, but I like trying to have as much consistency with everything in my bag. How does the original 16-35 compare?

The versatility of being able to use it on your 1D3 and 7D would seem to give the nod to the 17-40 f/4L, but if you can live w/ just using it on your 7D, I think the 17-55 f/2.8 would be a better choice.

I kind of did the same thing...went from a Tokina 11-16 to the 17-40L when I bought my 1D3. At first I thought I'd miss the extreme wide, but almost immediately I fell in love with the L. After nearly 1,500 pictures, I am still very happy with it. I'm not sure what eb314 is referring to, my copy (like every other one I have heard of/read about) is ridiculously sharp, especially compared to the Sigma 10-20 (another lens I owned for years and shot with extensively).

I say do it...the versatility of the L alone is worth it (I find myself shooting quite a bit in the 20-40 range, something that was not available to me before).

Photo_NH wrote in post #11702024
But versuses the 10-20? I'd go with the 16-35 II, but I wish it didn't have the 82mm filter. Weak argument, I know, but I like trying to have as much consistency with everything in my bag. How does the original 16-35 compare?

the II is worth the price.

KY707 wrote in post #11706757
the II is worth the price.

I'm not convinced it's worth more than twice as much as the 17-40L.

A Sigma 12-24 would provide you with ultra-wide (on the 7D) and ultra-ultra-wide on 1D, not to mention stupidly-ultra-wide if you get a FF camera

well you can still use your 10-20 on the 1D from 11mm up

Photo_NH wrote in post #11695763
I've had my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for a few years, and I feel like it's time to step up to another L lens, I'm really looking at the 17-40mm f/4L. I've looked at it a few times, but knew I had a wide angle in my bag, so it was just another purchase. I feel like I should be looking at a longer lens, like a 300mm or 400mm, but I'm looking forward to parting ways with it and getting all full frame lenses to go with my 1D Mk III, even if the vignette looks kind of cool, it's not practical for what I want to shoot.

Sports, landscapes, street, event.

Thank you for the help.

24-105 maybe? On a crop it's a nice compliment to the UWA, and on a FF it's a great range too.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #11706800
I'm not convinced it's worth more than twice as much as the 17-40L.

Have you had the experience of shooting with it?

pbelarge wrote in post #11707744
Have you had the experience of shooting with it?

The 16-35L? No. And, of course, it all depends on WHAT you shoot...if you're going to shoot indoor weddings and concerts, the 16-35 is the winner, no-contest...I like to shoot waterfalls and landscapes and all that stuff, for that the 17-40 is the champion. I almost never use low apertures, but it's much sharper than the I version.

05Xrunner wrote in post #11707684
well you can still use your 10-20 on the 1D from 11mm up

Are you sure? Doesn't it vignette like crazy? The Tokina 11-16 wasn't vignette free 'till 13.5

LowriderS10 wrote in post #11707862
Are you sure? Doesn't it vignette like crazy? The Tokina 11-16 wasn't vignette free 'till 13.5

nope..I had a 10-20 back in day with my 1DII and it worked fine for me from 11-20..you can use it at 10 without the hood and only get a little dark in the corners but not horrible.