from sigma 17-70 to canon 17-40 L, Is it a worthwhile upgrade?

[htthach]

just wondering about upgrade from my 17-70 to 17-40, but not sure does it worth it?
cos I still love the range of the sigma plus the close focus, but seeing so many ppl use the 17-40 and never touch it haha. If it worth it, maybe i'll upgrade some day.

[CYRN]

no. it's not worth it.

dun buy for the sake of buying... buy what you need to use to achieve the results you want.

[lsl03]

Not worth it, previously I am having 17-40 L, due to the shorter range I sold off and get sigma 17-70mm. The sigma quality is comparable to 17-40 L, never regret in buying sigma 17-70mm. Why change ?

[htthach]

Originally Posted by lsl03 Not worth it, previously I am having 17-40 L, due to the shorter range I sold off and get sigma 17-70mm. The sigma quality is comparable to 17-40 L, never regret in buying sigma 17-70mm. Why change ?

Glad to hear that,
upto now very happy with the 17-70, just wondering what the 17-40 will be like,
maybe i'll just borrow someone someday

[user111]

Originally Posted by htthach just wondering about upgrade from my 17-70 to 17-40, but not sure does it worth it? cos I still love the range of the sigma plus the close focus, but seeing so many ppl use the 17-40 and never touch it haha. If it worth it, maybe i'll upgrade some day.

of course its a worthwhile upgrade. nothing beats CANON EOS LUXURY-CLASS LENSE

[ritzd]

Originally Posted by htthach Glad to hear that, upto now very happy with the 17-70, just wondering what the 17-40 will be like, maybe i'll just borrow someone someday

Im also very happy with my 17-70. Picture quality is great and build also . Never tried 17-40 though.

[kraterz]

Dunno much abt the sigma but my 17-40 built like a tank and tough as nails. It inspire confidence so I dun have to worry abt lens getting damage etc, just shoot. Really great fast focus USM motor too. I wont sell it so quick.

[ExplorerZ]

Originally Posted by htthach just wondering about upgrade from my 17-70 to 17-40, but not sure does it worth it? cos I still love the range of the sigma plus the close focus, but seeing so many ppl use the 17-40 and never touch it haha. If it worth it, maybe i'll upgrade some day.

do you feel anything bad abou 17-70? or you find anything that you wan out of 17-40 which is important but yet 17-70 doesn't gives? if no i don think its worth the upgrade.

[lsl03]

Originally Posted by ExplorerZ do you feel anything bad abou 17-70? or you find anything that you wan out of 17-40 which is important but yet 17-70 doesn't gives? if no i don think its worth the upgrade.

May due to the advantages of USM, better build, weather seal, focusing ring will not turn during AF.

[unseen]

Originally Posted by lsl03 May due to the advantages of USM, better build, weather seal, focusing ring will not turn during AF.

Have you missed many shots due to the lens being unable to focus in time, in bright light?
Do you have a 1DS? or 1dmk2? LOL otherwise weather seal is pointless.
Anyway reason for better build being an advantage? do you drop your lens often?
Has the focus ring turning prevented you from taking any shots?

Or are these imaginery advantages?

[lsl03]

Originally Posted by unseen Have you missed many shots due to the lens being unable to focus in time, in bright light? Do you have a 1DS? or 1dmk2? LOL otherwise weather seal is pointless. Anyway reason for better build being an advantage? do you drop your lens often? Has the focus ring turning prevented you from taking any shots? Or are these imaginery advantages?

What I can think of are these advantages over sigma, however it may depends on the usage of an individual. For me I donot get this advantages out of the 17-40 L.

[rokieto]

what about any feedback on the close-up shots? macro useful?

[htthach]

Originally Posted by rokieto what about any feedback on the close-up shots? macro useful?

to me it is, never have to worry about minimum forcus distance

[unseen]

Originally Posted by lsl03 What I can think of are these advantages over sigma, however it may depends on the usage of an individual. For me I donot get this advantages out of the 17-40 L.

LOL sorry.. haha was actually sorta replying to the thread starter, asking him the questions. Alot of the advantages listed to get people to buy L lenses are actually rubbish/non existant, IMHO. Rubbish, is also the reason that with L lenses you do "less post processing" - Changing USM parameters to sharpen it, changing the amount of contrast/shape of curve to raise contrast, changing saturation value to give more more vibrant colours.. It takes ALL the same amount of time, just that you need to input a different value.

I think it's just wise to get what what you need. with the 17-70, one can DEFINITELY do more than a 17-40L. The MTF for the Sigma is slightly worse off at the 17mm end than the 17-40, but at other focal lengths it's as good, if not better than the canon.
The range of the lens, the price of the lens, the image quality.. all comes together as an almost unbeatable package. The $$ saved can be used to buy a good filter.

[ExplorerZ]

Originally Posted by lsl03 May due to the advantages of USM, better build, weather seal, focusing ring will not turn during AF.

that might be the disadvantage but does that let you miss any shot? like what unseen have said. if not why bother? you will be paying about $400 more and get lesser range just to trade off for those feature which doesn't really affacts you, so you think it worth it?
if yes, den upgrade might be for you, but to me i don see the need as long as i get the same shot.