Sigma 17-35 vs Tamron 17-35 on Canon 1Ds?

[andrew_dare]

<p>Hey everyone. I recently purchased the original Canon 1Ds. I'm looking to shoot landscapes mostly, so I've narrowed the lenses I'm considering purchasing down to two: The Sigma 17-35 and the Tamron 17-35. What do you guys recommend? Are there any other lenses in the price range that are better (PLEASE don't recommend the 17-40L, I don't have that kind of money!)? Thanks!</p>

 

[tony_leinster]

<p>Not sure about the Sigma but reviews of the Tamron are not good for full frame (see slrgear.com for example). I would honestly save until you can get the 17-40 L or look for a good used example. I use one on a 5D and it is excellent.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Tony +1. I haven't read good things about either the Tammy or the Sig(gy?) :)</p>

<p>What is your budget? Are you willing to wait? Would you consider used glass?</p>

[morthcam]

<p>Since you're on a budget and mainly interested in landscapes (slow-moving), would you consider used fixed-focal manual focus glass? If so, Olympus OM lenses will work on EOS with an adapter -- manual focus only, very limited metering. They have an excellent reputation -- 24mm lenses go for around $150 or less on ebay, their 21mm 3.5 goes for around $300 (I got mine for $160 with some imperfections in the glass). It does slow you down some, which for landscapes is probably a good thing. </p>

<p>Doesn't work for everyone, but throwing it out in case you're interested.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>the lenses mentioned are super wide angle on a FF camera. I would suggest getting a Canon 28-105mm or 24-85mm to get you shooting until you can save up for the 17-40mm. 24 or 28mm is still wide on a full frame camera and will give you a good "all around" range. Having only a 17-35mm would be like having only the 10-22mm on a crop sensor, which isn't a very versatile lens, more of a specialty one.</p>

[andrew_dare]

<p>Thanks for the comments guys. My budget is probably no more than $300 or $350 at the moment, and yes I am considering used glass. In fact, all of the lenses I am considering at the moment are used. My reason for going full frame is so I could go super wide (like beyond 24mm) but if the image quality will suffer than maybe I will reconsider. What else do you guys recommended?</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Hmmm... I would save up a bit more if I were you. Even a used copy of Canon's now-discontinued 17-35 f/2.8 lens is in the 500 dollar range.</p>

<p>Do you happen to have an APS-C sensor camera as well, or is it just the 1Ds? I ask because there are a few ultrawide optios on APS-C and only very limited options for full-frame sensors in the UWA range</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>The Tamron 17-55 is designed for aps-c sensors, look into the 17-40 L lens, it works fine on a full frame, distortion is bad but can be fixed in lightroom. Not sure about the Sigma as I don't have that lens. The canon 20mm works fine on a full frame, excellent lens for the price, should be within your budget.</p>

[andrew_dare]

<p>Hey. Yeah I was looking into the 20mm, and it seems like a nice option. I recently sold my Pentax K20d to purchase my 1Ds, so I only have the 1Ds at the moment.</p>

<p>Does anyone have sample shots of the EF 20mm on a full frame camera?</p>

[maciej_m__281_czy__324_ski]

<p>Hello!<br>

I use Tamron 17-35 and Canon 17-40L, Tamron is sharp wide open, even sharper than canon and 17mm from Tamron is wider than 17mm from Canon. In Canon and Tamron front lens don't move what is good. Canon has a little bit better contrast and has sealing what is good in bad weather. But on the full frame Tamron is said to be soft in corners and canon is ok. If I were you I would think about 28-75 Tamron or 24-85 canon (nice lens). I used 20mm Carl Zeiss jena on film body and it was sometimes too wide even for landscape so 17-35 on full frame is crazy wide. I would buy 24 prime or zoom with range 24-80. There was good lens 20-35 lens from canon maybe you will find it on ebay. </p>

[maciej_m__281_czy__324_ski]

<p>Here it is comperasion between sigma and tamron 17-35 . Tamron wins I think.<br>

<a href="http:/www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=391&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=371&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</a">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=391&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=371&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</a></p>

[maciej_m__281_czy__324_ski]

<p>Sorry wrong link.<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=391&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=371&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

[andrew_dare]

<p>Hey guys. Thanks for the additional responses. I've been doing a bit of research on the 17-35 L, and I stumbled upon the original 20-35 L lens. This lens sounds pretty sweet, and I've read some good stuff about it. I've been looking around and it looks like I could get one at a good price. Thoughts?</p>