Busted Lens Help Me pick a replacement

[Einstein]

The Canon 17-85mm f4 USM that came with my 30D has finally kicked the bucket. A second hand 17-40mm f4L has popped up in my local classifieds and i need your help to decide between the two options below. Price difference is negligable on both so it is really its a question of quality vs features.

1: Canon 17-40 mm f4L second hand and in excellent condition for $675. It's available locally and is L glass, ratings are excellent and im sure build and image quality is second to none.

2: Sigma 17-70 mm f 2.8 Macro OS HSM (has macro capabilities) Approx $650 landed in Bermuda. This lens offers a nice wide apperture which i have been craving on my current f4 lens as well as a similar zoom range. That and the macro ability is making me lean towards the Sigma over the Canon L glass.

I get a little turned on at the thought of buying L glass, is it worth moving away from the name brand and quality for this sigma with a wider apperture and extra Zoom?!

Any other suggestions are welcome.

Thanks!

 

[AmazingGrace0385]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for my Canon and LOVE it. Beats the crap out of the lens that came with my camera originally. I've heard good things about Sigma as well.

 

[Einstein]

thanks amazing grace that looks like another good option. I'm thinking its not worth getting the f4 L glass if I can get a new Tamron or Sigma with an f2.8 apperture for a similar price.

 

[Hardrock]

The 17-40l is an outstanding lens! The only reason I would get rid of mine would be to get the 16-35L f2.8. The 17-40 focuses at 11in and the 17-70 focuses at 8.7in.

 

[AverageJoe]

What do you intend to photograph with a new lens? Portraits? Landscape? General use?

 

[usayit]

My vote for the 17-40L. IMO, its sharper than even the 16-35 f/2.8L at similar apertures... just slower.

 

[Michiyo-Fir]

I would go with the Sigma. It's just more usable for me personally in terms of focal range and the f/2.8 aperture and macro capabilities are huge advantages to the kinds of subjects I photograph.

 

[Einstein]

The more reviews I read the more difficult this gets!

I will be using it as my everyday lens and will be shooting everything. The Canon appeals to me for shooting landscape / sunsets which i do allot of whereas the Sigma appeals to me for shooting in low light with no flash as well as an entry into the Macro world.

I have read a couple reviews of the sigma saying the image quality below 24mm is almost useless, this is not an option for me as I like to blow my landscape shots up large and I need the image quality in that range. Also if the image quality is that bad at the wide angles then the wide apperture isnt very usefull.

Now im leaning toward the canon L glass. I have contacted the seller and want to try it out to make sure it is a good copy, apparantly the quality varies widely amongst these lenses.

 

[Einstein]

I am checking out the Canon lens tomorrow, any tips on checking for image clarity? I have never used this lens before so i'm not sure if i will be able to tell if it is a bad copy or good copy.

My plan is take several images at different focal lengths and appertures then upload them and zoom in looking for obvious softness or defects.... any other ideas?

 

[KmH]

Is the Canon 17-85mm f4 USM not worth repairing?

 

[Einstein]

KmH no i dont think so. It has really bad mold growth inside and sets off the error 99 message on my camera so i think it would be an expensive fix. On top of this i would have to pay shipping from bermuda to the states and back and wait the fix time.

Starting to lean toward the Sigma again.... i just cant decide if the 40mm of zoom will be enough for me. I also have a Canon 50mm f1.4 prime and Canon 70-300mm f4 so the sigma would fit perfectly into my selection and cover most of the focal range. The Canon L will leave a gap in the 40-70 range but then again i have the 50 prim i can throw on for that.... why do camera lenses make me so indecisive!