Hmm go wide or go L?

shabba

shabba

Suspended / Banned
Messages
936
Edit My Images
No
Ok just throwing this one out there as frankly a little bored today, maybe you are too :)

Currently got a Canon 40D, with a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 EX blah which I use as my walkabout lens, a Canon 50mm 1.8 which I use when I can as I love the quality, and a Sigma 70-300mm cheapo which I use as little as possible as I don't like the quality.

As I shoot literally anything and everything I was thinking next I should get a super wide, 10-20mm Sigma as sometimes I think I'd like to go below 17mm. Not sure how often I'd use it though and part of me says sell the Sigma 17-70 and use the cash + cash not buying the 10-20 to get a 17-40L.

I don't think I'd miss the 40-70mm range too much. hmmmmmmmmm choices!!

I will change the Sigma 70-300 for something better one day, maybe a 70-200mm Sigma 2.8 as they seem to be around £350.

Is the Sigma 17-70 vs Canon 17-40L a world of difference?

What is the quality like on the Sigma 10-20?

Anyway like I say just chatting for the sake of chatting, so any oppinions are welcomed.
 
10-20mm Sigma as sometimes I think I'd like to go below 17mm

you sure...?............."link"
 
I really don't get the attraction of the 17-40mm f4 for APS-C users. On full frame, which it was designed for, it's a wide lens but on APS-C it's average spec at best and I'd much much much rather have a quality 17-50mm f2.8 (there are several to choose from) as they have more reach and a wider aperture.

Take the L badge off the 17-40mm f4 and I wonder how many APS-C users would even look at it once let alone twice.
 
Great article Yardbent, most appreciated. Hmmmmmmmmmm still very unsure now!

Ok I always 'assumed' the L was the holy grail so thought I'd ask to see if people think its a worthy upgrade to the Sigma I have. The 17-70mm is 2.8 at 17mm, but maybe I should change for the Sigma 15-55 2.8 full range, or the Tamron 17-50 2.8?
 
As far as I know L's are weather sealed and that could matter, and they use special glass but so do other lenses these days.

There are several quality 17-50mm f2.8's about including...

Canon EF-S 17-55mm, Sigma 18-50mm, Tamron 17-50mm.

I have the Tamron and it's very good, the Canon is a lot bigger and that could matter and it has USM and IS. There may well be HSM and IS versions of the Tamron and Sigma too so you'd need to check if you decide to go down this route.

I love wider lenses and my most used zoom is a Siggy 12-24mm, bit it's not for everyone.
 
Its a tough call, I bought the 24-70 and the 70-200 on an APS-C body and missed the 18-24 that I had on the old kit lens so bought the 10-22 I like the range I have using 2 bodys makes things easier so less lens swapping but I often would like the flexability of a similar range of the kit lens on a single body. So I am considering picking up a 17-40 over the 17-55 f/2.8 mainly becasue its cheaper and when ever I'm using that range it is mainly for table shots at charity balls with a flash and wider is better and I don't need the length to 55mm. the problem with the 10-22 is the distortion it creates when down at 10mm.
 
Little John said:
So I am considering picking up a 17-40 over the 17-55 f/2.8 mainly becasue its cheaper and when ever I'm using that range it is mainly for table shots at charity balls with a flash and wider is better and I don't need the length to 55mm.
Click to expand...

Ah. What you need is a Tamron 17-50mm :)
 
Used a 17-40mm for years on various canons and although optically it's a great lens, on a 1.6x crop it's not a lens that makes you go 'wow', other than its overall sharpness.

Yes, the L affix is worth its weight in gold if you're an outdoor photographer; the number of times mine got drenched yet still kept performing was what made it so useful.

However, the limited focal length range is this lens' achilles heel; it's just not flexible enough, and combined with a constant f/4, it's a lens that isn't as creatively useful if you're into shallow DoF work. Saying that, whack it on a FF body and it's a peach....

I think you'd immediately miss the extra reach that the Sigma has when it's not available to you....

An ultra-wide is the obvious gap filler to give you a massive range of focal lengths but then it's the case of which one; Tokinas are great value and sharp (both the 11-16 and the 12-24), the Sigma 10-20 is the popular 'cheapest' wide-angle and then you have the Canon 10-22, which is expensive but very good.

The L status for me just wouldn't be enough to ditch your 17-70, especially when you figure in the loss of focal length and the faster maximum aperture :)

woof woof said:
Ah. What you need is a Tamron 17-50mm :)
Click to expand...

Agreed. Best of both worlds and just as sharp.
 
Thanks for your post. Now leaning to getting a wide, but will take some work to use it properly by the looks of it.

ARGH such a debate, there is also the ditch the 50mm 1.8 and get the Sigma 1.4 50m....!
 
great article yardbird!

Thanks for the heads up Shabba -
defo more keen on a wide angle lens now!!
 
Get the wide.

Once you start using it, you'll find you'll be using it well below your 17mm "normal" shooting.
 
I have the Siggy 50mm f1.4 and it's lovely but the question that you'll have to ask yourself will be "what will it give me that the Canon f1.8 wont? and is it worth it...?"
 
Unless weather sealing is paramount then the 17-40 is not really a wise move for APS-C. It's decent on FF... ultrawide right up to an almost "normal" focal length... great, on APS-C it's widish onto almost short telephoto, but it's f/4 and non IS and there are so many APS-C options to do the same thing or better (minus weather seal) for good wonga. The only APS-C Canon body that even comes close to being properly weather sealed is the 7D anyway.
 
Ok looks like the wide is the one to get then.

Great info, thanks all.

As for the 1.4 vs 1.8 I'd 'assume' that the overall image quality is better and that its a bit faster overall too, and hopefully has better focusing.

Again all assumptions, happy to be corrected if wrong :)
 
the 1.4 isn't that much better tbh (if you mean the Canon 50mm) and certainly not worth the massive price difference, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top