canon 17-40 or sigma 12-24

amtaylor

amtaylor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,782
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I am considering one of these lenses. I have a 5d and a 24-105. I also have a 50d that I might change to a 7d. I'm obviously aware that the sigma gives me a wider range and will be more useful too on a crop sensor with the 24-105 on my 5d in 2 body outings but does it lose anything iq wise to the canon? Not fused about the lack of fixed aperture in this instance.
 
I use a 12-24mm on my 20D and I'm very happy with it.

I've read that it loses quality in the corners on full frame and that it lacks resolution (but I've looked at on line reviews that seem to say that the resolution is ok) but there isn't a lot wider so if wide is what you want it might be the one to go for.

I've only tried the 17-40mm once, again on my 20D, and wasn't impressed at all. I think that this lens makes sense on FF but looks average on APS-C where a quality 17-50mm f2.8 makes more sence to me.

In the end I went for the 12-24mm and a 17-50mm f2.8 for my 20D with the option of using the 12-24mm on my SLR and picked up a used 20-35mm for my SLR at a fraction of the cost of the 17-40mm.
 
I have the 12-24 , I have used the 17-40, but decided to keep with the Siggy!

Been using it on 1.3 crop and full frame sensors.

Rob
 
avarice08 said:
I have the 12-24 , I have used the 17-40, but decided to keep with the Siggy!

Been using it on 1.3 crop and full frame sensors.

Rob
Click to expand...

What were your reasons?
 
Hi

IQ wise I found the 12-24 comparable to the 17-40L,both not quite upto the standard of the 16-35 MK2(not much in it though).
The 12-24 and 17-40 are both soft around the edges on full frame.12mm is pretty darn wide but you can get some great effects with it.
I was never a lover of the 17-40 and much preferred the 16-35 MK2.I owned the 16-35 and 12-24 at the same time for quite a few months but found I would leave the 12-24 at home quite often simply for the reason that you couldn't use front mounted filters on it.There is a workaround but it's not ideal.
If you like to use filters I would steer towards the 17-40.If not I would seriously take a look at the 12-24 for the creative opportunities it gives.

Cheers
Gary
 
Sigma 12-24mm with 7D.

clumber.jpg
 
Thanks for the info Gary. I'm not questioning your experience because obviously that was the case for you but I have heard people say that they slightly preferred the iq of the 17-40 over the 16-35, just the aperture and the extra mm in the 16s favour. This suggests that there is a fair variety in the quality of the canons. Why do manufacturers not test there lenses properly before sale? Do they just presume the average punter does not care when spending hundreds of pounds.
 
I have both lens.

Personally I find the Sigma only works well under certain conditions, i.e. when it's not too bright. It's big disadvantage is that you can only use rear drop in filters. I keep thinking of getting rid of it, but every now and again under the right conditions it produces some great shots, so i think it will stay put, for now at least. One other thing, I do only tend to use it at 12mm on my 5D MKII most of the time.

Stating the obvious, but the 17-40 gives you a few useful extra mm's over the 24-105mm which I also have.

It would be a hard decision if I had to choose between the 2, but for that occassion when it does work well, I think I would choose the Sigma.

Simon.
 
This is the exact choice I was mulling over, a few years ago. Due to the rather mixed reviews on the 17-40 I ended going with the 12-24. The only thing to remember with the 12-24 is the rear mounting gel filters. The last time I looked, there wasn't any way of mounting filters to this lens, and as I haven't needed to use one with it I haven't checked since.

The only examples I have at hand of this lens are http://fav.me/dsketq & www.flickr.com/photos/niallallen/4894728888

The first shot was using my old 300D & second with my 30D. I really like this lens, and haven't had any problems with it. I'd definitely recommend getting one. I just wish I got more use out of it!
 
Last edited:
Hi Andy

Anyone who says the 17-40 has better iq than the 16-35 MK2 is talking rubbish.There's not enough in it to justify twice the price but the 17-40 is inferior in every way apart from weight and cost-if those factors are important to you.Going back 7 years I have owned 2x16-35 MK2's and 3 17-40L's.
16-35 MK2,17-40L and Sig 12-24 are all ok at what they do.None of them stand up to serious pixel peeping though.The only wide angles that I've used that I've been impressed with are the Zeiss 21mm ZE and Nikon 14-24 with a Canon adapter.I believe the 17 T&S would also fall into this catagory(never used).

Gary
 
SMT said:
Personally I find the Sigma only works well under certain conditions, i.e. when it's not too bright. It's big disadvantage is that you can only use rear drop in filters.

Simon.
Click to expand...

Mine uses front filters. There's an adaptor which pushes on over the hood for filters and lens cap. Maybe a newer model?
 
Like Grum a little surprised, the 17-40 has produced some good results for me on a cropped body and it's been wide enough for me.
 
RottenLuckWillie said:
Mine uses front filters. There's an adaptor which pushes on over the hood for filters and lens cap. Maybe a newer model?
Click to expand...

Really? Never heard of it. Have you got a link? Is it only suitable for crop frame bodies? I tried hand holding my 100mm filters at the front of the lens and it doesn't even cover the full frame at 12mm.

Thanks - Simon.
 
Last edited:
SMT said:
Really? Never heard of it. Have you got a link? Is it only suitable for crop frame bodies? I tried hand holding my 100mm filters at the front of the lens and it doesn't even cover the full frame at 12mm.

Thanks - Simon.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's crop only. Works fine on my 7D with 82mm filters. FF uses the rear filter.
 
RottenLuckWillie said:
Mine uses front filters. There's an adaptor which pushes on over the hood for filters and lens cap. Maybe a newer model?
Click to expand...

Is this not just the normal 12-24mm bucket lens cap?

Mine has a bucket thing that pushes over the existing fixed metal lens hood and includes a separate lens cap. If the lens cap is removed leaving the bucket in place filters can be fitted but it vignettes badly on my APS-C 20D up to around 20mm.

IMG_3082-01-c.jpg
 
Love my 17mm-40mm L on my 5D & wont be getting shot of it any time soon.:):thumbs:
 
Because it's not a full frame lens. The 12-24mm is and can therefore be used on full frame or APS-C.
 
RottenLuckWillie said:
Mine uses front filters. There's an adaptor which pushes on over the hood for filters and lens cap. Maybe a newer model?
Click to expand...

That cap is sometimes known as the bucket cap and does have a removeable "normal" type lens cap that does allow the fitting of screw in filters but they can only be used when the lens is fitted to an APS-C sensored body otherwise it will vignette.

Grads can be bodged onto the petal hood using blu-tack or similar but that's not ideal.
 
Mine is f4.5-5.6, slow but not really an issue for me as I bought it as a landscape lens, hyperfocal at maybe f8 or so for a DoF that goes on and on.
 
Gone for a 17-35 ex that went in the forum for 30quid so I'll play with that for a bit
 
Last edited:
£30?????

Good God. What a bargain.
 
so a wide angle like this wouldnt need a low aperture anyway right?

so if i had a 24-70 this would be a good addition low down?
 
24mm isn't very wide on a Canon APS-C as after the 1.6 x "crop" it's 38-112mm.

The reason a wide angle lens might not need a wide aperture is that some people (like me) might tend to use the lens stepped down to F8-11 or so to get a lot of DoF. I don't think I've ever attempted to use my Siggy 12-24mm at anything like wide open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top