Just finished my garage sale on ebay in order to get an ultra-wide lens for my 10D. I have been looking at Canon EF17-40 1/4.0L USM and the Sigma AF 15-30 EX DG. I can get the Sigma for Euro 550 and the Canon for around Euro 700. One of my photographer friends shoots with a 15-30 and is very happy with it. I am inclined towards the 15-30 as I save Euro 150 if I get it.
I am not a professional photographer but I do like to get prints for the photographs that I take. Is 15-30 a good lens or should I stick with the Canon?
The 15-30 is a pretty good lens. The problem I have with the 17-40 is that the 15-30 already isn't as wide as I would like it in some settings. Which is why I am probably getting the 12-24 instead, as soon as I can get a reasonable amount of $$$ for the 15-30 that I have.
But I am very happy with it. If one of your friends has one, can you ask to try it ? Just take a couple of shots and see if you like it. Also then try it at the 17mm setting (approx) to see if the 17-40 is wide enough...
Thanks for your response. I have tried it -once- and I was happy at the result. My friend is a pro. and getting his gear is like taking his wife on a date. I respect his decision. I haven't tried the 17-40 yet.
I was all set to get the 15-30 and then I went into to B&H and held both lenses. I ended up with the 17-40 and love it. I personally just liked the feel of the 17-40 on my camera. You really can't make a bad decision on this one - people tend to really like both models.
You like the feeling of the lens? I am sorry, are you sleeping with it and caressing it or just taking pictures with it?
Image quality and lens speed is what matters.
Only good advice that you can get on Sigmas is that Quality Assurance is not consistent on them, you better buy, try and be able to return, I heard of people that had 3 Sigmas before they found a sharp one. I guess if you can do this, it's worth finding a good Sigma...
I've had both and opted for the Canon which is wide enough for my needs, a tad longer, and a bit sharper in the corners. Other than that, there was very little difference in image quality that I noticed.
I love my 15-30 and it has worked very well on my D60, 10D, 20D, and 1DmkII (in case you were worried about the familiar re-chipping issues). I've been very happy and never regretted the purchase. With a 1.6x crop camera, you can even leave the lense cap sides on and use an 82mm filter on the front (i think it was 82mm, anyway). It will vignette on the 1.3 cameras unless you remove the cap and use only the hood that's built in.
This was with a mkII, iso1600, f/4, handheld at 1/15sec, 15mm and I added a little noise:
had a Sigma 15-30, was a pretty good lens but just a little too short for my use. Bought a 17-40L (my first L-lens) and still amazed by it's quality, speed and silence in focussing
The sigma is a little loud, I'll agree. Since the focus doesn't change much, it doesn't bother me. I also wish they stopped that push/pull manual ring thing for manual focus. Just small inconveninces for the quality of the lense.
The sigma is a little loud, I'll agree. Since the focus doesn't change much, it doesn't bother me. I also wish they stopped that push/pull manual ring thing for manual focus. Just small inconveninces for the quality of the lense.
That's good to hear! I have heard horror stories of glare issues with this lens and that could take care of some of those issues.
shawn wrote:
With a 1.6x crop camera, you can even leave the lense cap sides on and use an 82mm filter on the front (i think it was 82mm, anyway). It will vignette on the 1.3 cameras unless you remove the cap and use only the hood that's built in.
I have owned both lenses, having sold the 15-30 for the 17-40. On a 1.6x camera, use of a slim filter will result in vignetting at 17mm and below. The focus was loud and slow. I also always felt paranoid about damaging the bulbous lens that protrudes from the end. The 17-40 does feel a lot nicer, too, even if you're not sleeping with it. So, for me, the 17-40 fixed all those problems while giving me consistently sharper photos with better color. I lost the two mm but I can work around that if needed.
That being said, the 15-30 can produce great results as well!
I have a 15-30mm and it sits in the bag as it's been replaced by a 16-35.
In the beginning it was a wonderful lense but as my failing eyes became more experienced, I became more dissatisfied with the 15-30. I picked up a Canon 20mm f/2.8 and it too failed to make me happy. So I tried the 16-35. I went through a bad copy to get to a decent copy but my failing eyes have been happy ever since.
Over all, it boils down to money and need. Personally, of the three choices available, Sigma's 15-30mm or either of Canon's two choices, I'd go with the 16-35. If money is a concern, as it is with all of us, either the 15-30 or the 17-40 would be an excellent choice with image quality and build quality going to the 17-40.
Oh! And if the lense is really soft out of the box, don't hesitate to send it back as all of these WA zooms are notorious for poor alignment issues.
I took the jump and bought the 15-30. With the money left, I bought the ST-E2 so I can get to play atleast with a single flash unit for the time being.
Thanks to everybody for taking out time and inputs.
So, for me, the 17-40 fixed all those problems while giving me consistently sharper photos with better color. I lost the two mm but I can work around that if needed.