Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

cpaulfell · Joined: 07 Dec 2011 Posts: 2435

My daughter has a Canon T3i and was looking at purchasing a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM.

The sales person has advised her to rather go for the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0 AF DC OS Macro IF Lens.

I do not know the Sigma lens but I do know Canon and L glass.

Anyone have experience with these two lenses and care to share their thoughts?

Thanks
Paul

scphoto60 · Joined: 26 Sep 2010 Posts: 70

I've got the 17-40 f4L which I use on a 7D, lovely lens, tack sharp and a good walk about lens on a crop sensor body - also good for full frame if you upgrade, something the sigma won't do. Personally, I know which one I'd invest in!

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2747 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

I've used that Sigma lens on Nikon and returned it for being soft and otherwise crappy.

cpaulfell · Joined: 07 Dec 2011 Posts: 2435

Thanks for the advice :) Canon it is.

tverkhovynets · Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 749 Location: Kiev, Ukraine

I have 17-40, very fast and sharp lens. Quite heavy, but the quality is very good.

Taras

Mike Price · Joined: 06 Jun 2008 Posts: 2919 Location: South Wales

I also have the 17-40 L. Very nice, sharp, well built,very smooth fast AF. Also it looks sexy on the camera. I have had quite a few comments (from women) about my big one when using it.

Mike

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 387 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Poor advice by the Sales person. The Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM is newer and got Great reviews, especially in comparison to the Canon. Got The Sigma and am quite happy. Read The Reviews and comparisons. There are ups and downs for each of them.

Best regards,

Christian

pardojavi · Joined: 28 Jun 2012 Posts: 2 Location: Spain

If you don't want to spend much money, another option is to buy the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
The stabilized version is valid for full frame and the quality is very good for its price.

PaulCowan · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 4181 Location: Evolving

For the record, the 17-40 f/4L is the worst lens I own (and I've got a lot). Its distortion and CA, even at f/8 is atrocious and goes well into the frame, not just the edges that you wouldn't see on a cropped sensor.

You might think I have a dud copy, but when someone singing the praises of this lens posted 100% crops from his fantastic version they were just as bad as mine. I'm forced to conclude that a lot of people just aren't very demanding when it comes to image quality, or maybe they never actually use it at 17mm and anywhere near f/4 (and the problems are still there to a greater or lesser degree throughout the zoom range).

If I want to go wider than the 24mm offered by my 24-70/2.8 my only realistic option for stock is a 20mm f/2.8 Flektogon, made by the East German Zeiss factory in the 1970s (it works on Canon with a mount adaptor). Its optics are hugely superior to the 17-40.