I'm on the market for a wide lens for my 10D
Hope this issue is not to over talked hare
Would like to here your thought and experience…
What les should I get:
Sigma 15-30
Canon 17-40
The sigma is 2mm wider and a bit faster on 15mm (F3.5) and cost less.
the canon is 10mm longer and its an L glass..
I think both have great built quality.
I know the L is a great lens but is the sigma good enough ??
Or there is no compare between the two?
I own and use both. Using rather crude tests I've found the Sigma to be very close in quality to the Canon. In fact I still can't quite decide which one to sell. I really appreciate the extra wide angle of the Sigma especially for Architectural work. I do enjoy the quiet and weight of the Canon. If I were on a budget I wouldn't hesitate to pick the Sigma over the Canon.
Steve
I have the Sigma and it's well built, but the MF/AF set up sucks. You have to switch the AF/MF switch and then move the focusing collar. With the Canon, you simply turn the focusing ring. 2 steps vs. no steps. The Sigma is very sharp at F8 and smaller but edges go soft. The funny part is that the cirner softness is worse on my D60 and 10D then it is on my Kodak 560 which has a larger chip. Another thing I like about sticking with Canon brand lenses is that you can count on then working with whatever new EOS bodies come to market. I have 3 Sigma lenses, a 28mm F1.8 and a 500mm F7.2 APO. Neither works on the 10D and the 500 does not work on the D60. I sent them to Sigma for chip updates and the 28mm came back fine but the 500mm came back with a note that the lens is too old and cannot be updated. I have some old Canon lenses that work fine on even the latest Canon EOS bodies
Overall, for $150 difference I would most likely go for the Canon. Better handling, smaller, better construction, faster & quiter focusing, assured compability, better resale value, the edge in optical performance.
I've owned both lenses and sold the Sigma, kept the 17-40. One thing to consider is that the Canon takes a 77mm filter, which my 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400 take. So if you want to use a circ pola on the Sigma then you have to shell out some more cash for the 82mm filters. The Sig was a great lens, but I think the Canon is a wee bit better. I liek the fact that it has the weather sealing gasket too for my 1D.
I've also owned both and sold the Sigma. The Sigma was a nice lens, but it was a pain to use filters, it's big and bulky, and after using the Canon 17-40L, there was no going back.
Using the 15-30, I find that I usually don't use a circular polarizer, and most of the time I don't do it because it doesn't look right (at least not at the 15mm end), and I really do appreciate the 15mm end, wish it was wider...
That said, I would probably have bought the 17-40 if it had existed when I bought the 15-30, but it didn't. And I don't see a need to upgrade, since the 15-30 works just fine...
I bought the 15 - 30. Why? The Canon lens, in Canada, was $500.00 more and I could not justify the cost difference compared to the image difference. I used it full time this past weekend and I'm quite pleased with it (you can check out the ice fall pics from my site if you want some samples). I do not have any issue with the manual focusing procedure. I did get a couple of pretty purple flares but that was in an extreme situation (2 out of 128 pictures). I only used the Canon in the store so I cannot compare in field use. I thought the Sigma focusing motor was loud but I did not notice it in actual use.
I have the Sigma and am very happy with that. On my 10D it produces sharp results in almost all focal length - even when viewed at 100% crop without USM. It is less sharp on the long end, but still more than acceptable. This lens is prone to flaring - but in some cases I like to have flares in my picture so it's your call. When I bought that it's almost $200 cheaper than the Canon.
I second Toshi's suggesting especially since you own the 28-135. The 17-40 will have overlap while the 24-28mm loss between the 12-24 and the 28-135 probably will not be missed. However, the 12-24 is not as fast as the 17-40 so if you need speed it may not be the one. Neverless the 12MM is very interesting (approx 19mm on the 300D/10D).
I have the 24-70, 17-40 and the 12-24 and find I use the 12-24 more than the 17-40 since I otherwise use the 24-70.
Another alternative is the Tamron 17-35 XR Di f/2.8-3.5. Fast aperture, unbelievable sharp images, and every test I've seen (so far) of this relatively new product puts it squarely in the 17-40L class. The only place where the 17-40L has a discernible advantage over the this lens or the Sigmas (15-30 EX, 17-35 EX, 12-24 EX) is resistance to flare when pointed toward the sun.
As to the Sigma 12-24 others have mentioned: excellent focal range but f/4.5-variable strikes me as too 'slow' a lens in this range. But nobody else is delviering this range.
imagician wrote:
excellent focal range but f/4.5-variable strikes me as too 'slow' a lens in this range. But nobody else is delviering this range.
That would depend on the required use. I do mainly landscapes and the f4.5-5.6 is just find for that. I mainly shoot > f8 for DOF. If I wanted speed I would go for the 16-35 f2.8 or the 14mm f2.8 prime. The 17-40 is only f4 and is not much better.
Sigma 15-30. I couldn't justify the extra $ for the image quality. I shoot mostly landscapes and architecture and the extra 2mm on the width is an asset but not such a big deal that I find hte need to go to the Sigma 12-24mm. Sure, the Canon 17-40 is a great lens (I challenge yout o find a bad review) but do a simple cost benefit analysis and it's a no brainer for me. That said, if you're looking at pro-like results you may want to opt fo rthe 17-40mm. If you're not, I think it's just a matter of lens envy. If you want more low light capability up the iso or buy a prime.
