Sigma 12-24 vs Canon 17-40 f/4L

[keith204]

Well I sold a 40D, 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and Sigma 10-20, and will be replacing it with the 5D mkII, 24-105 f/4L IS, and [insert decision here].

I'm leaning for the Canon 17-40 f/4L for the following reasons

• Familiar range (relatively comparable to the 10-20 on a crop)
• Range is better for an everyday shooter on a crop body
• The coveted red line. I've been moving to mostly Canon grub for awhile, and like it.
• Price ($650)

But, the Sigma 12-24 sounds pretty intense, being so much wider and working on a full frame. People seem happy with it. It costs $780.

Anyway, I'm leaning towards the 17-40. What would you do?

 

[Ls3D]

With the exception of the extreme wide angle end, it sounds like you are overlapping coverage with the 24-105... but if this is your sweet spot I'm sure the differences will be apparent and there is what, 9mm's of dramatic wide angle, now on full frame... Loosing the crop factor and swapping lenses.. could be interesting times ahead.

I'm heading towards the same setup, but will try to pair the 5D MII with f/2.8 lenses whenever possible.. or some even faster prime$. I'm hocking booty left & right to fund some of these purchases,.. and a few will just have to wait.

Lens choices are so personal to your shooting style & budget, and I don't know much, but these are my thoughts, misguided or not.

-Shea

EDIT: Now I see you already have the 70-200 2.8L IS

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The sigma is pretty mediocre. I tried one on my D700 and wasn't impressed at all. The color is pretty orange too. It vignettes really bad and isn't ever sharp. I suggest either the 16-35II, 17-40, or if you really want awesome super wide, the Nikon 14-24 and an adapter ring.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I own the 16-35 (the first version) and find it almost unusable at the wide end, but I shoot a lot of people. It's sufficiently sharp, and I assume the Mk II version of that lens is even better now that it's been optimized for digital sensors. However, it's a really wide FOV, and you just need to be sure you want that. If you're shooting relatively close quarters, heads and faces start looking like a 4:3 TV show being watched on a 16:9 set. And don't EVER take a close portrait of someone you love - you'll never be forgiven for the inadvertent nose job.

 

[keith204]

Iron, what you say sounds very familiar, as I am used to the 10-20. This lens would be a fun lens, more than a money-maker like the 24-105, 70-200, etc. When shooting a company exec in my little studio, some of the most-liked shots are the ones when I'm on a ladder with the ultra-wide. There's just something everyone loves about a pic of their superior with an outrageous noggin.

Other than that, it's a fun range to stick on my camera for a play day.