Lens: Canon 17-40L/f4 or Sigma 17-35mm/f2.8-4 or Tamron 17-35mm/f2.8-4?

lhfoo · 18th February 2004

Which one is better? Anybody who has any of these lens, please comment.

Or even better, if anyone got a comprehensive lens test on these lenses, I would love to hear and see some sample at f2.8 and f.4 at the wide and far end.

Thanks in advance.

PLRBEAR · 18th February 2004

L lens for resale value. 2 stop difference at wide end doesn't bother me.

Garion · 18th February 2004

For build quality, AF speed, handling and image quality, the rest don't come close to the L glass. If you have the budget, go for the Canon L. You won't regret it.

blurblock · 18th February 2004

I have the 17-40L Lens which I find a bit too warm.

Did not try the Tamron or Sigma yet. I heard both are quite good.

EiRiK · 18th February 2004

Originally Posted by PLRBEAR

L lens for resale value. 2 stop difference at wide end doesn't bother me.

why sell if its really that good?

lutz · 18th February 2004

Have come across many unfavourable reviews about the Sigma online..

Have to check carefully if you do decide to buy. There seems to be lots of lemons around...

weg · 18th February 2004

Originally Posted by PLRBEAR

L lens for resale value. 2 stop difference at wide end doesn't bother me.

should be 1 stop difference....

ya lor get the L if u have the money

PLRBEAR · 18th February 2004

Originally Posted by EiRiK

why sell if its really that good?

I'm just saying that because some people like to buy and sell soon after, because they're not happy with it for some reason. Some people keep their lenses for a long time, and then sell to get new ones. Who knows. Something better than the 17-40L may come down the road. Only Canon will tell.

kiwitan · 18th February 2004

If issue's no $ go for Sigma 17-35mm. If $'s no issue, go for L.

Garion · 18th February 2004

Originally Posted by PLRBEAR

I'm just saying that because some people like to buy and sell soon after, because they're not happy with it for some reason. Some people keep their lenses for a long time, and then sell to get new ones. Who knows. Something better than the 17-40L may come down the road. Only Canon will tell.

12-24mm f2.8 L?

...How I wish...

lhfoo · 18th February 2004

Then why do we have 24-70mm/f2.8 on film body? It is nice having f2.8 which may comes in handy at times esp indoor candid shots .... but of course I can live without it

However, it would be nice if we have 17-40/f2.8L at an affordable price. I read in many reviews that says 16-35mm/f2.8L is not good compared to the 17-40/f4L ....

Is Sigma EX optical as good as Canon L?

PLRBEAR · 18th February 2004

Originally Posted by lhfoo

Then why do we have 24-70mm/f2.8 on film body? It is nice having f2.8 which may comes in handy at times esp indoor candid shots .... but of course I can live without it

However, it would be nice if we have 17-40/f2.8L at an affordable price. I read in many reviews that says 16-35mm/f2.8L is not good compared to the 17-40/f4L ....

Is Sigma EX optical as good as Canon L?

In terms of marketing, i think Canon would rather you buy a full frame CMOS to make full use of the 28-70L, than produce a 17-40/2.8 just for the APS-C(?) format. So for the lower-end DSLRs, the only option would be to go "aftermarket" for a fast lens that will cater to the 1.6x crop factor. This is where the Sigma and Tamron come in. Why bother to invade a certain market and lower your standards to a certain level when you're Canon? Right?

lhfoo · 18th February 2004

Originally Posted by PLRBEAR

Why bother to invade a certain market and lower your standards to a certain level when you're Canon? Right?

Exactly, that is what I have been trying to say ... I think everyone knows the red trim on the lens looks just cool ... but having f2.8 for an equiv 28mm (17mm on 1.6x crop) is pretty normal and useful at times esp indoor. It would even be better if it is f2.8 all the way ...

.

What I really want to know is the sharpness and contrast of the Sigma lens compared to Canon ... really hoping that someone will have the privilege to review these lenses and show us some samples photos of the center and edge of photos ...

Prismatic · 18th February 2004

Originally Posted by lhfoo

Then why do we have 24-70mm/f2.8 on film body? It is nice having f2.8 which may comes in handy at times esp indoor candid shots .... but of course I can live without it

However, it would be nice if we have 17-40/f2.8L at an affordable price. I read in many reviews that says 16-35mm/f2.8L is not good compared to the 17-40/f4L ....

Is Sigma EX optical as good as Canon L?

You can't compare like that, sometimes, you may just need that extra mm or that extra stop. Trust me, some photogs have to live on F2.8.

imaginary_number · 19th February 2004

Why is the Sigma 15-30 left out of this poll? It's a pretty good (and affordable) WA lens IMHO.

blurblock · 19th February 2004

Originally Posted by EiRiK

why sell if its really that good?

Because not all people like warm coloured lenses. I prefer lenses that produce netural colour ..... I might go for the Tamron 17-35 DI if it is proven good and netural colour.

goering · 19th February 2004

Originally Posted by lhfoo

Or even better, if anyone got a comprehensive lens test on these lenses, I would love to hear and see some sample at f2.8 and f.4 at the wide and far end.

Thanks in advance.

There are a couple of shots comparing the Tamron 17-35 to the Canon 17-40L here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=7538890

Based on what I can see, optically, the Tamron seems a tad soft wide open but at F4 onwards where it competes with the Canon, I find they are about on par. In fact I find the Tamron to be a tad sharper and brighter. Wondering if my eyes are deceiving me? Pretty impressive optics for 1/2 the price I must say if these pictures are worth their salt

Kobe · 19th February 2004

Originally Posted by goering

There are a couple of shots comparing the Tamron 17-35 to the Canon 17-40L here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=7538890

Based on what I can see, optically, the Tamron seems a tad soft wide open but at F4 onwards where it competes with the Canon, I find they are about on par. In fact I find the Tamron to be a tad sharper and brighter. Wondering if my eyes are deceiving me? Pretty impressive optics for 1/2 the price I must say if these pictures are worth their salt

Hmm... I think the 17-40L is around 25% more expensive than Tamron 17-35 Di in Malaysia. Anyone know what's their price in Singapore? Anyone did an e-quote recently?

goering · 19th February 2004

Originally Posted by Kobe

Hmm... I think the 17-40L is around 25% more expensive than Tamron 17-35 Di in Malaysia. Anyone know what's their price in Singapore? Anyone did an e-quote recently?

Oops I think you are right. I got mixed up with US$ as quoted in dpreview forums.

According to majere2sg, CP quoted $960
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=62171

The 17-40L should cost around $1,280 to $1,300 new at CP - so that makes it about 30+% more than the Tamron

Elizabeth Tan · 19th February 2004

TK Foto at Shaw Tower was selling the 17-40L at $1260 w/gst few weeks ago.

Originally Posted by goering

The 17-40L should cost around $1,280 to $1,300 new at CP - so that makes it about 30+% more than the Tamron

View Poll Results: Which one do u think is better value for money?
Canon 17-40mm/f4L	216	70.59%
Sigma EX 17-35mm/f2.8-4 HSM DG	43	14.05%
Tamron SP 17-35mm/f2.8-4	47	15.36%
Voters: 306. You may not vote on this poll

18th February 2004	#1
lhfoo New Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 18	Lens: Canon 17-40L/f4 or Sigma 17-35mm/f2.8-4 or Tamron 17-35mm/f2.8-4? Which one is better? Anybody who has any of these lens, please comment. Or even better, if anyone got a comprehensive lens test on these lenses, I would love to hear and see some sample at f2.8 and f.4 at the wide and far end. Thanks in advance.

18th February 2004	#3
Garion Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: West side of S'pore Posts: 5,517	For build quality, AF speed, handling and image quality, the rest don't come close to the L glass. If you have the budget, go for the Canon L. You won't regret it. __________________ [ deviantart selections \| Photoblog ]

18th February 2004	#2
PLRBEAR Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Pasir Ris Posts: 569	L lens for resale value. 2 stop difference at wide end doesn't bother me.

18th February 2004	#4
blurblock Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,837	I have the 17-40L Lens which I find a bit too warm. Did not try the Tamron or Sigma yet. I heard both are quite good.

18th February 2004	#6
lutz Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 59	Have come across many unfavourable reviews about the Sigma online.. Have to check carefully if you do decide to buy. There seems to be lots of lemons around...

18th February 2004	#9
kiwitan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: $ingapore Posts: 2,536	If issue's no $ go for Sigma 17-35mm. If $'s no issue, go for L.

19th February 2004	#15
imaginary_number Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,895	Why is the Sigma 15-30 left out of this poll? It's a pretty good (and affordable) WA lens IMHO.