Canon 17-40: Worthy upgrade from Sigma 18-50 2.8 (non-macro)?

[dcmountaineer]

I currently own the Sigma 18-50 2.8 (older, non-macro model).

Is upgrading to the Canon 17-40 4.0 worth it?

I love the 2.8 on the Sigma, but I'm not totally blown away by it's sharpness.

I do alot of walk-around, city scape land scape shooting.

Thoughts?

 

[Big Mike]

I don't know a whole lot about the Sigma...but the 17-40mm is an L lens...and as such, it's image quality is superb. One thing I often hear about the 17-40mm, is that it's color rendition is excellent. That's one reason why landscape photographers love it.

Sure, you might miss the F2.8 in some situation...so you really need to consider how important that is to you.

 

[bigtwinky]

If you are shooting alot of landscapes and cityscapes, the use of 2.8 isn't that huge of a deal as any low light scenario, you are probably using a tripod.

So yes, due to it being L, I would consider it a nice upgrade

 

[dcmountaineer]

I do find myself using the 2.8 quite a bit as I don't always carry a pod and it's so easy to crank it to 2.8 not have to worry about boosting the ISO too high. So in one respect, I WILL miss the 2.8. But if the IQ is far superior on the L, I don't think I'm going to miss it too greatly.

 

[cfusionpm]

Rather than replace, you may want to compliment it with something like the EF-S 10-22mm. Its optics are top notch for a non-L lens (that, and the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 are considered the best non-L canon zoom lenses in terms of quality).

You can get some really great city shots at 10mm. Of course, if you aren't using a crop body, it takes those out of the picture... in which case, I would say if you could sell the Sigma for a minimal loss, the 17-40 L would be an excellent lens.

 

[Village Idiot]

The 17-40 is kind of a lack luster lens when using it on a crop body, so it really depends on your camera.

 

[dcmountaineer]

The 17-40 is kind of a lack luster lens when using it on a crop body, so it really depends on your camera.

Lackluster in terms of range? or performance?

 

[Village Idiot]

The 17-40 is kind of a lack luster lens when using it on a crop body, so it really depends on your camera.

Lackluster in terms of range? or performance?

There's nothing really special about it when you can find something like a 17-55 f/2.8 IS for a little bit more. The range is a tiny bit wider than the kit, but doesn't zoom as much.

 

[dcmountaineer]

The 17-40 is kind of a lack luster lens when using it on a crop body, so it really depends on your camera.

Lackluster in terms of range? or performance?

There's nothing really special about it when you can find something like a 17-55 f/2.8 IS for a little bit more. The range is a tiny bit wider than the kit, but doesn't zoom as much.

See, I have the opportunity to get the 17-40 (used) for 5 bills. That would be quite a discount compared to the 17-55 2.8. I never really contemplated buying the 17-40 new for 7 bills.

 

[Village Idiot]

Lackluster in terms of range? or performance?

There's nothing really special about it when you can find something like a 17-55 f/2.8 IS for a little bit more. The range is a tiny bit wider than the kit, but doesn't zoom as much.

See, I have the opportunity to get the 17-40 (used) for 5 bills. That would be quite a discount compared to the 17-55 2.8. I never really contemplated buying the 17-40 new for 7 bills.

If you have crop and are planning on staying with it and want wide, check out a sigma 10-20. It's about that price and if you already have something in the 17-40 range like the kit, you may be able to expand your kit more.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the 17-40 is a great lens, but there's a reason why I never purchased it before I went with a full frame camera and why I was always borrowing a friend's Sigma 10-20.

 

[dcmountaineer]

There's nothing really special about it when you can find something like a 17-55 f/2.8 IS for a little bit more. The range is a tiny bit wider than the kit, but doesn't zoom as much.

See, I have the opportunity to get the 17-40 (used) for 5 bills. That would be quite a discount compared to the 17-55 2.8. I never really contemplated buying the 17-40 new for 7 bills.

If you have crop and are planning on staying with it and want wide, check out a sigma 10-20. It's about that price and if you already have something in the 17-40 range like the kit, you may be able to expand your kit more.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the 17-40 is a great lens, but there's a reason why I never purchased it before I went with a full frame camera and why I was always borrowing a friend's Sigma 10-20.

Yes, I do have a crop (400D/xti). Me looking at the 17-40 is not so much about wider as it is about getting sharper. It seems like my Sigma 18-50 could be a little better in that department. Interior shots and close-ups are usually pretty good looking - but I tend to lose edge detail when I'm going wide outdoors.