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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 21, 2004, 12:29 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

I bet the topic titleprobably got some laughs:lol:

But... While I know that the quality difference from the Canon to the Sigma would be pretty noticable, what about the speed difference? What will I lose? Please advise. Thanks.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
VS
Sigma 17-35 mm f2.8-4.0 EX DG HSM


Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 21, 2004, 12:59 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Not enough to let it be a deciding factor. I would be more concerned with image quality than 1 stop. I'm not familiar with the Sigma nor do I know the cost differences. The Canon 17-40 is a very sharp lens with good quality build. You won't go wrong with that choice (barring your budget for lenses).
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 1:28 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Never held the Sigma, but the 17-40 rips in AF speed and is extremely quiet. Build quality is superb, too.

The only other thing I can sayhinges whether your plans areto keep either lens you decide on for a long period of time or not. When I bought my EOS 3film camera it was bought with the intention to keep it for a long time. I have kept itand will continue to do so. This is not necessarily so with digital cameras. I realize within probably 2-4 years I will probably need to replace my Digital Rebel. I do plan, though, to be able to keep my lenses and use them with successive bodies I buy.

Many people like third party lenses as a way to keep costs down up front with minumum if any loss in optical quality. However,Sigma has a proven track record of not being able to keep up with Canon's technology and consistentlyhaving to re-chip lenses to make them work with newer bodies. They also have a proven track record of not making this re-chipping process available on discontinued lenses.

The lensyou aretalking about today is a new lens and will/SHOULD work with all currentCanon DSLR's. How long this lens stays in Sigma's current line is anyone's guess.DSLR's are being developed at an incredible pace. I would imagine two years from now Canon's Digital SLRline will look quite different from what it looks like today, but I am willing to bet my 17-40 and 70-200 f4L lenses will work with whatever is being sold. I wouldn't be as sure to say the same thing about many third party lenses, and Sigma's in particular.If that is the case and you have to dump that lens, be prepared to have to sell it at a huge loss compared to what you paid for it new. Back when I sold my Nikon outfit and switched to CanonI had a Nikon F-Mount28-80 f2.8 Tokina lens. It was the last third-party lens I will ever buy.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 1:42 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

I never really thought of the re-chipping issue... good to know and worth thinking about.

Even though I do a fair amount of indoor portrait work, I am guessing that the trade off would be to ass more light, use a tripod if needed or adjust ISO...

But it sounds like the quality is well worth the stop difference. Will adding a UV filter impact the sharpness much?
Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 1:45 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

i had the new sigma 17-35 for about 24 hrs. shot with it and inspected the images. repacked it and called B&H. ordered a 17-40L and got a RMA for the sigma. enough said. admittedly it was being used on a 1Ds but its limitations became painfully evident in a very short time in full frame. use the 17-40L almost every outing.

use a good quality MC UV filter and it should have NO effect on the image quality at all.


http://www.pbase.com/image/27874865

http://www.pbase.com/image/29801448

all shots done with a UV filter in place

sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 2:03 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

I used to think it would, but if you buy a better brand, multi-coated UV filter it shouldn't affect picture quality in most cases. You may want to remove it in cases of strong backlighting- it may be no trouble at all.

After going years without using them I recently bought B&W MRC UV filters for both of my L series zooms. So far I see no image quality issues with the Digital Rebel. I did some test shooting with my EOS 3 this weekend invaried lighting conditionsthat will tell the tale with film based cameras once I get the film this evening and scan some images in.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 4:40 PM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

There you go... It's your money!

Check out the last few pictures posted by tmy400 on this French forum taken with the "older" 17/35 2.8-4 Sigma EX (this guy has owned both the 16/35 2.8L and a Nikkor 18/35): http://www.photim.net/nci/discu.php3...4809SiVisPacem

-> As long as you're not using the Sigma 17/35mm f2.8-4 on a full frame camera, ie a 10D or DRebel with a crop factor (you've seen my previous post with the 10D), you can't beat its performance/value: I used my Sigma a lot for sunrise/sunsets so the faster f/2.8 is more important than how much a lens cost!

BTW the Sigma is also ultrasonic (HSM) so it's fast/quiet and also with full time manual overide...

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 5:13 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

I have a lens that is sharper, I have a lens that is faster, but when I want a lens to put on when I'm going on a hike with a single lens I keep installing my old Sigma 17-35. The zoom seems to always fit the bill, faster than some, softer than some, but very comfortable. I quess I'm glad I'm so easily satisfied, leaves me money to buy other things.
Attached Images
 
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 7:50 PM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Tomsch wrote:
Quote:
I have a lens that is sharper, I have a lens that is faster, but when I want a lens to put on when I'm going on a hike with a single lens I keep installing my old Sigma 17-35. The zoom seems to always fit the bill, faster than some, softer than some, but very comfortable. I quess I'm glad I'm so easily satisfied, leaves me money to buy other things.
:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)



Zendragon wrote:
Quote:
But... While I know that the quality difference from the Canon to the Sigma would be pretty noticable, what about the speed difference? What will I lose? Please advise. Thanks.
What's an f-stop? It depends on where you want to capture the rising(or setting sun): as the red glow is peeking through the orange horizon or after the sun has turned yellow/white with the full blue sky, this transition only last a few moment... Remember landscape may be static, but ocean waves are not and clouds can be pretty dynamic with the strong ocean breeze, which means you'll also need the faster shutter speed (@ the same ISO) in minimum light! So compare with the softer EF 16-35 f/2.8L, the Sigma is even more valuable by several magnitude $$$
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2004, 9:38 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 18
Default

I don't think you can beat the 'bang for the buck' factor on the Sigma. For the price you can get two for of them vs. a Canon 17-40. That way if they need to 're-chip' when you get a new cam, buy another and you broke even! Keep the old one for your old body or sell it with the body to boost the price.

The fit and finish on mine is excellent. It's fast and so silent I'm surprised it is actually focusing.

And I'll take 2.8 over 4.0 every chance I get. I love ambeint light and flexibility (my other favorite lens is a Sigma prime 20mm f/1.8).

Is the Canon a superior lens - very likely, but then it should be! It costs twice as much. Duhh!

If you understand and embrace the 'limitations' of your tools, they are no longer limitations, theyare the personality of your tool, its flavor. Use that to your advantage.

Granted, no one wants a crappy tool. The Sigma is not that.

Buy a Sigma lens, and take the money you saved to buy some other tools that will help you expand your photographic horizons beyond what having the more expensive Canon lens will.

Likely if the difference in quality is TRULY going to affect your work (or rather the perception of your work), you're at a point in your career that you should be using all 'L' lenses anyway!!!

Have a ball and take some pictures already!


mscott821 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 11:11 AM.