Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or Canon 17-40 f4

[dennislim]

as above ...

can't make up my mind on which to purchase ...

In terms of Speed, Sharpness and colour ?

Will using it as a portrait lens gd ?

[ray_stinger]

Im also currently pondering and deciding between one of these 2 lenses.
Im worry about compatibility problem with using the 18-50 in the future in case i upgrade to 1DmkII. From the reviews I have read, the 18-50 seems to be a very sharp lens in its class if you get a good copy. Besides, its price is around $300 cheaper than the Canon L lens.

[kayaro888]

Originally Posted by ray_stinger ..... Besides, its price is around $300 cheaper than the Canon L lens.

If only diff $300, go get the L.

[ray_stinger]

Originally Posted by kayaro888 If only diff $300, go get the L.

Sigma is one stop brighter, EX built cant be that bad, and longer range.

However, the L is 1mm wider, better built, silent + fast USM focusing, full frame support. So which?!?! -_-

[user111]

L lense has more resale value

[Splutter]

IMHO, the 17-40 is Canon's best value for money L lens. If the price diff is only $300, should just settle for Canon.

[monsoon]

if have enough, buy L lens

[mpenza]

go for the L for the colors, sharpness wide-open and fast focussing or second hand for either (if money is a constraint).

[dragos]

L lens

[RossChang]

go for the L... it's worth every cent...

[dsky]

I have both 18-50/2.8 and the 17-40(not mine, belongs to a friend but with me now as i'm helping him to sell)

Right after I bought the 18-50, my friend asked me to sell for him, if not, i sure get it from him.

In terms of pic quality, i would say 17-40 is better.. but thats just mho.

[shojibake]

Just a question.... would the one stop difference be all that important? Seeing as how dlsr's can go up to 1600 with lesser grain than before, is there a point in having that one stop? I tried the tamron 17-35 and the L, and can't quite tell the difference between these 2. Is it only in outdoor shots or in similar contrast backgrounds that these lenses including the sigma outperform everything else out there?

[Prismatic]

Used both lenses before, the 18-50 is quite sharp, comparable with the 17-40. The focal range is pretty good too. But the AF of the lenses leave much to be desired. It's a bit on the slow side, and my experience is, sometime inaccurate in low light conditions. The 17-40 is a proven sharp lenses. If you can afford it, by all means go for it.

[mervlam]

same comments as Prismatic. In addition, there is some vignetting on the Sigma when open wide. Additional point for L, it can be used on full-frame SLRs, but the Sigma is a DC lens, can only be used on 1.5x or 1.6x DSLRs.

btw, i wished that people commenting really have experience with BOTH lenses and not draw conclusions.

If you think the 'L' lens is the choice, explain. If Sigma is chosen, then explain also.

[dennislim]

but the sigma can take portraits with nicer bokeh than the canon right ?

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by dennislim but the sigma can take portraits with nicer bokeh than the canon right ?

well... technically speaking, its pretty challenging to take portraits with a WA lens due to the distortion. simple experiment. i presume u have a kit lens 18-55mm? turn to 18mm and shoot somebody as if u are shooting a portrait. put it up on ur computer and i think u'll see wat i mean by distortion. the subject's face shld come out a bit weird (unless dats wat u are looking for).

dat said, its not impossible to take portraits with a WA lens, as long as u know wat the lens can do. for reference, u can always check out Watcher and/or KNIGHT_ONG's works. watcher used 12-24mm/f4 while KO uses 17-35mm/f2.8 (both are nikon users, but dats besides the point).

bokeh is not ONLY abt f-stop. it includes the distance bet u, the subject and backgrd. all things considers, the 17-40L is a much better buy than sigma. however, its, IMO, quite unfair to compare 3rd party and L-lens becos of the difference in levels of technology in manufacturing the L-lens.

[budiman]

This lens received good reviews and ratings. I own one myself and like it.

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 dat said, its not impossible to take portraits with a WA lens, as long as u know wat the lens can do. for reference, u can always check out Watcher and/or KNIGHT_ONG's works. watcher used 12-24mm/f4 while KO uses 17-35mm/f2.8 (both are nikon users, but dats besides the point).

yup. even a 10-22 (wider than 12-24 on a DSLR) could take good portraits but need to be careful with perspective distortion.

[dennislim]

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 well... technically speaking, its pretty challenging to take portraits with a WA lens due to the distortion. simple experiment. i presume u have a kit lens 18-55mm? turn to 18mm and shoot somebody as if u are shooting a portrait. put it up on ur computer and i think u'll see wat i mean by distortion. the subject's face shld come out a bit weird (unless dats wat u are looking for). dat said, its not impossible to take portraits with a WA lens, as long as u know wat the lens can do. for reference, u can always check out Watcher and/or KNIGHT_ONG's works. watcher used 12-24mm/f4 while KO uses 17-35mm/f2.8 (both are nikon users, but dats besides the point). bokeh is not ONLY abt f-stop. it includes the distance bet u, the subject and backgrd. all things considers, the 17-40L is a much better buy than sigma. however, its, IMO, quite unfair to compare 3rd party and L-lens becos of the difference in levels of technology in manufacturing the L-lens.

=) Thanks for those that reply =) appreciate alot =)
anymore opinions ?

[cosycatus]

its not only about F stops. L lens are designated so because they contain at least a piece of flourite element (some crystal) that has superior light properties, thus resulting in good pics. It also have good built. The cost lies not only in the constant F4 aperture...