kakomu wrote:
It's at times like this that one must question whether they do, in fact, need 17mm.
I'd really like something wider than 20mm for the UWA look that it gives to landscape. I've read a little about the Sigma 12-24 and it sounds tempting but I like the Canon (17-40L) better for it's overall range. I think it may give me the UWA I'm looking for and double as a wide-to-standard zoom on an eventual crop body.
If I thought I could be happy with 20mm... I would force myself to save some pennies and compromise with the 24L II
coincidentally the angle of view of each of the lenses differs by about 10 degrees...
17-40 @ 17mm = 104*
20-35 @ 20mm = 94*
24mm = 84*
the sigma is a big jump... @12mm = 122*
I sold my 17-40L for the 16-35L II, but only because I'm shooting indoors in available light and needed the extra stop. Otherwise, the 17-40L should do you just fine.
Amen! No need to look any farther. Best superwide available for canon mount if you don't want speed. 17-40mm F/4.0 L, nothing with as much focal range close to the quality!!
I had the 17-40L, which worked great. But due to some indoor shots, I opted for the 17-35 L 2.8 for about the same price as the 17-40. The 17-35 is also a great lens for it's age and does outperform IMO the 17-40 of today.
