Canon 17-35/2.8 L or Sigma 15-30/3.5-4.5

[alaghi]

I have the sigma, and a friend want to change with me the 17-35 L, and I will

pay U$150,00 in change.<br>

What do you think about it? I use this lens in EOS 30 and Rebel XT bodies, and

I love wide angle. Perhaps in future I buy the canon 10-22 or tamron 11-18 (I

read it can be used in full frame bodies from 14 to 18mm).

[alaghi]

I forget, The sigma is super sharp, but have much flare (flare monster), and I read the 17-35 have little flare and little sharpness...<br>

Anybody tested these lens?

[ci_p]

If you're happy with what you've got, stick with it.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Of Canon's L-series ultrawide zooms (20-35/3.8, 17-35/2.8, 16-35/2.8, 17-40/4) over the years, the 17-35 is probably the least well regarded. But that's not to say it isn't good; rather, the others are extremely good, and this one is just a bit behind them. You can find a number of reviews of this lens, including comparisons with some of the others (the 17-35 vs. 16-35 comparison at Luminous Landscape might be particularly interesting), which might help you decide whether the 17-35 is good enough for you.</p>

 

<p>As you are considering the swap with a friend, hopefully your friend would be willing to let you test the lens first, or at least undo the swap if you discover that the lens isn't what you expected it to be.</p>

[ian riches]

I posted a mini-review of my Sigma 15-30 lens a while back. It can be found <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FGqU&tag=">here</a>.<p>

 

Remember that this is with a 1.6 crop EOS 10D. The flare issues would be much more noticable on a full-frame camera.<p>

 

Ian

[phil_sugar]

Gustavo:

I have owned and used the older 17-35 L lens for years. When I shot with my film EOS 3 I was not too happy. But now I am using it on a 20D and it is terrific. This is no doubt due to the 1.6 crop factor so that the image circle of the lens is much smaller. The center area of the lens is quite sharp and the soft edges just don't even register with the crop factor. One negative is that the 17-35 is not the best built L lens I own, but it is still quite rugged and it is nice having a bright 2.8 image rather than a rather dim 4.5.

Hope this helps.