Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 21, 2004, 8:07 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Hi.

Nikon or Canon wide zoom??

I sold my mediumrange Mamiya 6 a year ago and now I will go digital. I feel the lenses are most important. The digitalbody will come and go while an expensive lens will remane... (start with digital rebel/10D + lens or D70/S2 + lens)

Important features for me:

*35mmlens ´cos the ccd´s prob grow larger in time.
*f2.8
*Optical quality

Read an ok review of Canons lenses on Luminous (17-40 looks nice, the expensive 16-35 looked worce), but missing Nikons 17-35 2.8.

I like Canons digital bodys (and the pic´s) better than Nikons (though I´m a former Nikon F90X & F4s owner), but not if the Canon 16-35 f2.8 is worse than Nikons...

Anyone seen a prof. review of the Nikon? Anyone used the Nikon and have pic´s to mail? [email protected]

Thanx!

And yes I posted same question @ "Nikon lenses" below :lol:


JackWorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 22, 2004, 8:33 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Both lens systems are about equal. Anyone's opinion of which wide zoom is best is only an opinion that will vary amoung different photogs- it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says as far as opinion goes- in the end you need to go to a store, take a flash card and mount both on a body they work with, play with them, take a few pics, take the card home and see which you "prefer". That will tell you more than 100 opinions that would inevitably be divided, meaning half would be "wrong", at least by your own feelings after having used both.

For what it's worth, I've been in both camps having been an F3 user, then F4s with 20-35/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 Nikkors. Once digital became affordable for me I decided I liked Canon so I now have an EOS 3, Digital Rebel and the two f4L zooms, the 17-40 and 70-200. You are looking a little more upscale in the lens selection. I've seen people who like and dislike the 16-35 f2.8, but I am sure it's pretty darn close in quality to the 17-35 f2.8 Nikkor.

If you are deciding to go digital, make you decision today knowing both makers are constantly one-upping each other so if you think one's body is superior to the other, make your decision knowing in 6 months, in all liklihood, that will change. Constantly changing because one body or the other is better is EXPENSIVE. I've done that for the last time.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2004, 3:59 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
Default

If f2.8 is a requirement (as you say), then the Canon 17-40 is out of the question. I have one. It is a superb lens in every way - color, contrast, sharpness, overall realism and "punch", focusing speed, and build quality. The only limitation I have encountered is that it's at f4 wide open. The optics are so high quality that f4 is very usable and tack sharp. But it's only f4, so that makes it unsuitable for low light conditions.
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2004, 4:20 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 54
Default

Hi guys, this seems the right place to post my question. I want to buy a wide lens and I was thinking buyingSigma 17-35mm/2.8-4 EX APO HSM for Canon. The thing with this lens is that the quality varies from "excellent" to "no good". The guy who sells it sent me 4 photos he could quickly findso I coouldjudge the quailty of this particular lens. Here are the links, I would be very thankful for some expert's advice - is this a "lucky" lens or not? The sizes are 2, 1.7, 1.7 and 1.2MB

http://www.cmslo.net/foto/IMG_1729.jpg

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"

http://www.cmslo.net/foto/IMG_2542.jpg

http://www.cmslo.net/foto/IMG_4533.jpg

http://www.cmslo.net/foto/IMG_4766.jpg

Thank you very much for your help.
Trdi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2004, 4:47 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
Default

From what I've read (reviews fromvarious sources),the Sigma 17-35 is a decent performer, but not as sharp as the Canon 16-35 "L", and the Canon 17-40 "L" is comparable to the 16-35 and slightly sharper under some conditions.

In other words, what you get in the Canon 16-35 "L" compared to the 17-40 "L" is not better resolution or contrast, but speed (bigger glass): f2.8 versus f4.
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2004, 4:50 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 54
Default

I've seen a test with 4 Sigma 17-35 and the results were amazing: from best to worst. That's why I'm asking.
Trdi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2004, 7:01 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
Default

The 17-40 "L" is a consistent performer.My experience is that it has excellent image quality throughout its entire range of f stops and zoom. The reviews and sample pictures I've seen from other people tell the same story.

The only limitation of the 17-40 "L" is indoor shooting. At f4 wide open it needs a flash under low light conditions, but it's long enough you'll get flash shadows in your pictures at certain zoom levels, even with the hood removed.
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2004, 1:15 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Freefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 368
Default

I have both the Sigma 17-35 and the canon 16-35L. Not really much to say other than you get what you pay for. The Sigma was a starter lens, and did fine, but now I do a lot of interior/real estate work and you can´t beat the Canon 16-35, the difference is very noticable wide open, as I found the sigma to be quite "Soft"at 2.8witha bit of abberation. Try both :shock:. With regard to flash shadows, I use a Metz CL-4 (Hammerhead) fitted to the left of the camera, AND a sigma 500ex on the hotshoe, if set up correctly, you can achieve as close to studio lighting with no shadows as you can get with flash! Good luck.
Freefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2004, 2:23 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 54
Default

Hm, I don't know this particular lens (17-35) looks soft to me. What about Sigma 15-30?
Trdi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2004, 6:57 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Here's my Sigma 17-35mm/2.8-4 EX APO HSM for the 10D (BTW Sigma has a new improved version of this lens with a smaller front filter and closer minimum focus):

Attached Images
 
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:30 PM.