Canon 17-40 f4L or Sigma 24-70 f2.8

Peter-T

Peter-T

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,016
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Im on the look out for a wide angle zoom. I appriciate the canon 17-40 and the sigma 24-70 are two completely different lens' but i'd like some feedback on them.
They can both be had for arround the same money (500-600 which is my very upper budget, feel free to chip in any other lens suggestions to fit that price range).
The main thing im lookin for with these lens' is sharpness at wide apertures, I have my nifty fifty witch i only find sharp at f8 (albeit at pixel peeping level) but that gives me a DOF which is not always ideal. I'd like it to be just as sharp at the f4 kind of level.
So does anybody out there have some real life experence with either of these and could reccommend (or steer me away from) them??
I'm not in a rush for the lens, i'll have to save up some money first, but I dont want to be saving for aaagggeeesss for the Canon 24-70 which im guessing most people would say to go for.

Thanks in advance!
Pete
 
If you want a wide angle, the the 17-40 is a no brainer in my opinion - its nice and sharp, and you will find it a LOT wider than the 24-70 even though there does not seem that much of a gap on paper.

I do not hear good things about the sigma, especially wide open.
 
Thanks for that Rob. Although I do have a Tamron 28-80, its soft even when down to f8 and that really annoys me. I only really use the nifty and i know the difference between 50mm and 24mm would be very noticable. Would the Sigma be much better stopped down to f4? If it was sharp at f4 i think the extra reach/versatility would tip the scales towards it.
 
The best thing to do would be to get your hands on a lens to see the difference in these focal lengths, if you've got a kit lens you'll be able to get a fair idea or the difference between 17mm and 24mm. As for the lenses you mentioned, I have the 17-40 f4 and it is a very nice lens (though it's one of my least used), I know of a couple of people who have had bad experiences with the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (so if you go for one try it before parting with your cash). If 24mm will be wide enough for you, you could look out for a used 24-105 f4 IS, which is a very versatile lens.
 
Well, you said it yourself; they are two completely different lenses. On your 500D, the 17-40 is a wide-to-normal focal length range and the 24-70 is a normal-to-short telephoto range. Trying to compare the two is like trying to compare a bus and a car - it don't work!

So what do you want? A wide walkabout or a more general walkabout with more reach that will sacrifice a wider end?

My nifty fifty was staggeringly sharp from f/2.8 onwards and even at any realistic level I could never tell the difference between f/4, f/5.6 and f/8. God that lens was good - my 1.4 fifty is much the same, so good in fact that I have been able to calm down my sharpening in post processing a lot. If you say it's only sharp at f/8, and that your current Tamron is soft at f/8, you either have dodgy lenses or you pixel peep way too much, in which case you may never be happy with a purchase unless you drop several thousands of pounds on a prime.
 
Thanks Peter. No, i dont have a kit lens, so cant unfortunately get some shots at these focal lenghts.

I suppose i'm really looking for a wider view than the 50, coupled with the versatility of the zoom that will be sharp at wider apertures.
I've had a quick look on eBay and 24-105s seem to go used for more than im wanting to pay, and i dont know how much the extra reach would get used.
Thanks for your suggestion
 
trencheel303 said:
Well, you said it yourself; they are two completely different lenses. On your 500D, the 17-40 is a wide-to-normal focal length range and the 24-70 is a normal-to-short telephoto range. Trying to compare the two is like trying to compare a bus and a car - it don't work!

So what do you want? A wide walkabout or a more general walkabout with more reach that will sacrifice a wider end?

My nifty fifty was staggeringly sharp from f/2.8 onwards and even at any realistic level I could never tell the difference between f/4, f/5.6 and f/8. God that lens was good - my 1.4 fifty is much the same, so good in fact that I have been able to calm down my sharpening in post processing a lot. If you say it's only sharp at f/8, and that your current Tamron is soft at f/8, you either have dodgy lenses or you pixel peep way too much, in which case you may never be happy with a purchase unless you drop several thousands of pounds on a prime.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am being over critical of sharpness then. I'll get some shots and post them up to see what you guys think
Thanks for your comment
 
I bought a used Sigma 24-70 (non hsm) and I was dissapointed with how soft it was. I sent it to Sigma and they had trouble making it any better so they have sent it back to Japan!! Cant complain about their customer care? I would definately try one before you buy one though
 
I've just bought a Sigma 18-50 2.8, and am delighted that it is absolutely pin sharp. Sure, it's not an L lens, but frankly I don't see the relevance of 'pixel peeping' when you're talking about actual photographs you're looking at as a whole.
 
If you could stretch that little bit further, then the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS comes into range, probably the best EF-S lens canon produced so far, or the alternative, is to have a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non IS is about £330, new IS version an extra £120), not got the build quality of an L series canon lens, but the optics are very good....so a cheaper alternative. That's if you require the faster glass of a f2.8 over the f4 of the 17-40mm f4, which is still a good lens.

As for a wide angle lens, as mentioned above, 24-70 mm isn't wide angle on a crop sensor body, especially canon's XXXXD, XXXD or XXD series camera's the lens will frame like a 38.4-112 mm on your body because of the reduced size of your camera's sensor.
 
Thanks for all the comments guys. I've just done a series of test shots with the nifty and it does seem to be quite sharp at f4.

I'm still stuck on which lens to go for. I'll deffo be trying them out before buying
Anyone else have any experience/comments?
 
I'm a bit confused. Under your picture it says that you have a 500D and that's an APS-C 1.6x crop camera so 17mm equates to 27mm on full frame and 24mm equates to 38mm and neither of those is particularly wide these days.

If you want a wide-ish to mid range zoom then a 17-50mm f2.8 makes more sense than a 17-40mm f4 to me and if you want truly wiiiiiiiiiide a 10-20mm makes even more sense.

The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is pretty sharp, I have one and I have no complaints. There are a few choices in the 10-20mm type range. I went for a Siggy 12-24mm and love it.
 
The 17-40 is nicely built but in my opinion rubbish as a walkabout lens. The 17-55IS blows it out of the water on image quality. I did own the 17-85IS and found it a nice lens and not the crappy image that everybody moans about. So, maybe look at the 15-85IS. Great zoom range plus image stablising.Dont get sucked into an L lens thinking the image quality will be far far superior.

Dave
 
The 'nifty' is an odd beast. I know exactly what you mean, there's just something about it that is real use the images just don't look anywhere near (for example) the 85mm f1.8.

Anyway that aside, I've just ordered myself a Tamron 28-75 2.8, hardly wide angle and has its limitations, but for £300 with 7-year warantee I thought it was worth a punt. With that in mind, you'd have enough change to upgrade your 50mm to the 1.4 or potentially nearly enough for another fast prime.
 
pete.rush said:
If you could stretch that little bit further, then the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS comes into range, probably the best EF-S lens canon produced so far, or the alternative, is to have a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non IS is about £330, new IS version an extra £120), not got the build quality of an L series canon lens, but the optics are very good....so a cheaper alternative. That's if you require the faster glass of a f2.8 over the f4 of the 17-40mm f4, which is still a good lens.

As for a wide angle lens, as mentioned above, 24-70 mm isn't wide angle on a crop sensor body, especially canon's XXXXD, XXXD or XXD series camera's the lens will frame like a 38.4-112 mm on your body because of the reduced size of your camera's sensor.
Click to expand...

I think the 17-55 is a bit too much for me.
Now the Tamron 17-50 i think is a good option. And with the cheaper price tag thats always a bonus. Im not really happy with my Tamron 28-80 so im hoping to get something to replace it, but this makes me a little nervous at buying another Tamron. The current one is a variable max aperture, would that mean the 17-50 is likely to be better quality at it has the fixed max ap?

Again, thanks for all your imput. Me being a Libra means im very indecicive
 
Not so long ago 24 - 30mm was a wide angle lens, majority of landscapes were shot with these focal lengths

Personally I think the Ultra wide lenses, 10-22, 10-20, 11-16 etc have a very limited use, plus they ain't cheap to buy for something that may get 1 or 2 outings (That's my own personal opinion), and they ain't easy to use and achieve good results.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

You would be far better off getting something like the 17-50 or 17-55 which will give you far better options as a lens.
 
Wow, im really slow at typing!!

Yeah, 'woof woof' I hired a 10-22 and found it to be quite difficult to get the hang of for the 3 days I had it. I wont be needing that wide. Somewhere in the late teens/early 20s is wide enough for me.

James, you say you've ordered the lens, have you recieved it yet? I'd love to see some shots wide open to see how sharp it is as that is certainly another option.
Im quite happy with my nifty for the price, but could maybe save for something like the 85 1.8 for the other side of the 50.

Another factor i have just thought of is the focusing speed, the Tamron I have now is very slow, and very noisy, i'd prefer something faster/quieter

Really appriciate all these comments guys!!
 
Very different lenses, really depends on what you want to use them for?
 
I find that my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is really sharp.

If you are happy with something starting around 20mm would you consider a 20-35mm? I bought a used Canon 20-35mm USM for my film body and I was quite surprised (in a nice way) when I tried in on my DSLR.

It's a shame you don't fancy a superwide as my Siggy 12-24mm is my most used zoom by far.
 
You should be OK with either Canon 17-40 or Tamron 17-50mm, but I couldn't recommend that Sigma. I had one for and it is hands down the softest the lens I've seen.
I am somewhat surprised about your nifty. Surely it doesn't produce smooth bokeh nor is built for rough handling, but from f/2.8 it is meant to be sharp, and very sharp at f/5.6. It may suggest focus error or EOL for the lens.
 
daugirdas said:
You should be OK with either Canon 17-40 or Tamron 17-50mm, but I couldn't recommend that Sigma. I had one for and it is hands down the softest the lens I've seen.
I am somewhat surprised about your nifty. Surely it doesn't produce smooth bokeh nor is built for rough handling, but from f/2.8 it is meant to be sharp, and very sharp at f/5.6. It may suggest focus error or EOL for the lens.
Click to expand...

I've done some test shots this evening, i may well be being too critical of the lens, but it really excells at f8 f5.6 is very good f4 is acceptable but f2.8 i find a little soft. I know its not going to be fantastic wide openbut I was hoping for better at 2.8. To be fair though, i dont often use it that wide so 4 or 5.6 is usually okay.
 
I've owned a Canon 17-40 and the Tamron 17-50 (had to sell the Tammy as I went FF). Based upon what I'd read online, I wasn't expecting the 17-40 to be any great shakes. Either the people with negative comments on the 17-40 had never really used one, or mine was simply extremely good. I really rated it, and loved the the shots that I took with it. The only downside was that it's not a very usable walkabout lens on a full on FF camera. I ended up replacing my 17-40 with a 24-105. Have to say that I think the 17-40 was better optically.
 
Hmmmm...strange question. What do you want your widest angle to be? If you want 17mm then get the 17-40 - simple really.

If you aren't bothered about the wideness at 17mm and are happy with 24mm, then there's quite a range of options open to you, but I reckon you need to decide on how wide you want to go initially.

FWIW, I've got a 17-40 and use it for all my landscape stuff, reportage, wide angle sports and all sorts and find it an excellent, hard wearing, robust and accurate little thing. And it doesn't accumulate dust behind the front element like the 17-55 does (though a bit of screw-drivery sorts that out!).
 
I've not received the 28-75 yet but will post some shots with it when I do, if you can wait. If you are even vaguely considering the 85mm 1.8, I would say just get it, it's essentially faultless (superb AF speed & IQ) - and not very expensive either.
 
If the nifty fifty isn't sharp enough for you until you reach f8 then I'd be pretty confident saying no Zoom Lens is going to be sharp enough for you below f8. You need L series primes and even then I suspect your going to be disapointed with alot of shots as it appears you have become pixel peeping obsessed. If you not satisifed until images viewed at 100% + are pin sharp then you are going to suffer alot of disapointment.
 
Tobers said:
Hmmmm...strange question. What do you want your widest angle to be? If you want 17mm then get the 17-40 - simple really.

If you aren't bothered about the wideness at 17mm and are happy with 24mm, then there's quite a range of options open to you, but I reckon you need to decide on how wide you want to go initially.

FWIW, I've got a 17-40 and use it for all my landscape stuff, reportage, wide angle sports and all sorts and find it an excellent, hard wearing, robust and accurate little thing. And it doesn't accumulate dust behind the front element like the 17-55 does (though a bit of screw-drivery sorts that out!).
Click to expand...

Well, wider than 50mm really.
I suppose the focusing speed/accuracy is more important to me than how wide it is.

a1ex2001 said:
If the nifty fifty isn't sharp enough for you until you reach f8 then I'd be pretty confident saying no Zoom Lens is going to be sharp enough for you below f8. You need L series primes and even then I suspect your going to be disapointed with alot of shots as it appears you have become pixel peeping obsessed. If you not satisifed until images viewed at 100% + are pin sharp then you are going to suffer alot of disapointment.
Click to expand...

Well no, f8 is what I go for if i dont need a shallow DOF. I'm happy to use down to f4, 2.8 if i really need to.
 
Go back to using a compact for a few days and then come back to your SLR equipment; you'll learn to appreciate it a lot more.

Why pixel peep at 100%? No one views images at 100%, and if you print big, you are doing so because your audience will be quite far back.
 
trencheel303 said:
Go back to using a compact for a few days and then come back to your SLR equipment; you'll learn to appreciate it a lot more.

Why pixel peep at 100%? No one views images at 100%, and if you print big, you are doing so because your audience will be quite far back.
Click to expand...

Actually, thinking about it that makes alot of sense. I have a poster on my wall measuring 160x33 cm and that was taken on a p+s. Viewed at 100% is really not brilliant, but in print, it looks fantastic.

I think im slightly edging towards the Canon 17-40 or the Tamron 17-50. I've had a good look round the net and the Tamron has some good reviews. A few people have said the focusing can be noisy, but i dont think that would be a problem for me
 
I had a similar experience with the Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro (non- HSM) that's been described by others on this thread- a horribly soft lens!
 
I've got the precursor to the Sigma, the 24-60mm f2.8. Have to say it's a fantastic lens, by all accounts much better than the new one, and only cost me £150 off eBay. It was recommended by someone on here, I put up a thread with some 100% crops from the first time I used it (not great pics but will give you an idea of the quality):

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=211568

I've used it a lot since then and I'm happy with the sharpness wide open, though it's best at f4 and above.
 
Peter-T said:
Im on the look out for a wide angle zoom. I appriciate the canon 17-40 and the sigma 24-70 are two completely different lens' but i'd like some feedback on them.
They can both be had for arround the same money (500-600 which is my very upper budget, feel free to chip in any other lens suggestions to fit that price range).
The main thing im lookin for with these lens' is sharpness at wide apertures, I have my nifty fifty witch i only find sharp at f8 (albeit at pixel peeping level) but that gives me a DOF which is not always ideal. I'd like it to be just as sharp at the f4 kind of level.
So does anybody out there have some real life experence with either of these and could reccommend (or steer me away from) them??
I'm not in a rush for the lens, i'll have to save up some money first, but I dont want to be saving for aaagggeeesss for the Canon 24-70 which im guessing most people would say to go for.

Thanks in advance!
Pete
Click to expand...

I think my uncle have the lens you are looking for. I can refer you to him if you wanted. :D:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top