Canon 17-40F4.0L vs. Sigma 17-70F2.8DC or stay with kit lens

[juankar_miranda]

Hi,

I am have been reading this posts on this forum for more than a year. It has

been fun and educational. Last Christmas I decided to purchase my first SLR

(digital), a Rebel XT with the kit lens. Also I bought the 70-200f4.0L and the

50f1.8. I am learning little by little to use the speed, aperture, ISO, etc. I

really enjoy this camera. My dilemma (a good one however) is, I have around

$800 to burn and I thought about replacing the kit lens with another lens. I

shoot 99% of the time outdoors, very few times I�ve had low light conditions.

Also I like landscapes so I thought of the 17-40f4.0L as a replacement. Also I

thought about the Sigma 17-70f2.8DC It would be great to have just to lenses

covering 17-200mm but I am not sure if this lens is as "good" as the Canon L

lens and it seems to be just for cameras with a crop sensor. Has anybody done

comparison on them? I have not found it. I am just not sure what to do. One

more thing, would there be a noticeable improvement in the photos from the kit

lens to the 17-40F4.0L even thought I don�t do much post processing? That is

perhaps my main fear, not being able to tell the difference because I have not

master the kit lens yet and would be spending $600 and getting the same results.

I really appreciate any help. BTW I don�t have a shop close by to rent any lens.

Thank

Juankar

[anesh]

The Sigma is a 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5

[images_in_light_north_west]

17-40f4L is great, but not very wide on a 1.6 crop, I got it for my 30D and wish i had got a wider lense (10mm)

[taner]

I do not know about the Sigma lens, but here is a post that can give you some ideas about the 17-40/4L lens:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GLUU

 

I have been using this lens for some time now, and have mixed views about it. Canon does not have wide primes in the same quality range as the 85/1.8 or the 100/2 or 100/2.8 (although the 20/2.8 comes close), and the 17-40 makes more sense because of that.

 

Although I would never buy one, you might want to look into/wait for the new Tamron and Tokina 17-smth./2.8 lenses - initial reviews indicate that they are really good:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm

 

Good Luck.<div></div>

[taner]

<div></div>

[lester_wareham]

My 17-40 is much sharper at the edges and a little bit sharper than the kit in the centre, I would say both are good copies. This is based on formal testing using the ISO method.

 

Now, if these differences are really observable in real world shots is moot as you dealing with three dimensional subjects rather than flat test targets.

 

I would say the main advantages of the 17-40 as a rplacement are better flair resistance, lower CA, much better handling (FTMF) and build quality.

 

I hung on to my kit lens for a long time so fill out the rest of my system. If you think you have everything else you need or that your main subjects are with this focal length range then get the 17-40.

 

For example, would you like an ultra wide angle like the excelent EF-S 10-22mm, or how about a nice macro lens for insects and flowers like the EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM, or a birding lens like the 300/f4L IS or 400/5.6.

[forrest.berkshire]

I own the 17-40mmL lens, and have been very happy with it. If your limit is the $800, then I would say you will be very happy with it. It is solid, quiet, sharp and focusses great. Personally, I wish I had shelled out the extra dough for the 17-35 f2.8, because I would like the extra stop for lower-light conditions. But if that is not a consideration for you, then I would say this is a great lens.

 

It might be a little more expensive than other lenses, but in my opinion the L lenses are worth the money. I view lenses as a "safe" investment, they hold their value, unlike digital cameras, which drop in price so fast I am always afraid to buy a model for fear another one might come out next week and I could have saved $500-$1,000.

 

I would stay away from the Sigma, since it closes down so much at 70mm. I use two lenses, the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f2.8L. Really don't need much more (although I could go for a 300mm 2.8).

[yakim_peled1]

There are very few third party lenses which may lure me to purchase them and this Sigma is certainly not one of them. So, if I were in your shoes and debate between these two lenses I'd surely get the 17-40/4. However, if I had an EF-S capable body (I have a 1D) I'd surely get the 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM to fulfill all my wide angle shots.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[lancemcvay]

I've just picked up the Tokina 12-24mm f/4, and I'm really happy with it.

 

However, in your case, I would suggest either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2.8 macro. They are both outstanding lenses.<div></div>

[jpk]

I've got Sigma 17-70 for two months and I'm prety happy. It's less expensive than Canon 17-85, faster in terms of apreture, not AF of course, and has quite descent makro capabilities 1:2,3

 

And what is more important: the image quality is also quite OK.

The pcture:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3871/tulipan380322ty1tc.jpg

 

And the 100% crop:

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4495/tulipancrop8rh.jpg

 

JPK.

[alexdi]

I had the opportunity to play with the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 back to back today. The Sigma had noticeably faster (and quieter!) AF, and in general handled a bit better. Zoom ring wasn't as tight. If not for f/4.5 on the long end and reservations about Sigma's QC, I'd probably have bought one immediately.

 

Based purely on Photozone's sample images, the Tamron is the sharper of the two, though they're both quite good. Both are leagues better than the kit lens.

 

DI