Canon 17-40 vs Sigma 12-24...?

[postcardcv]

I only use a wide angle lens on very rare occassions (not needed one yet so far this year) and am not sure which of these two is the better option. I'll be using it on a full frame camera alongside a 28-70 f2.8... anyone got an opionion as to which is the better choice?

 

[arad85]

I've a 12-24 and I think it's a tad soft around the edges, lacks a bit of contrast and has a slight colour cast. I'm getting a 17-40 to go along side it. Take a look at the two lenses compared on a FF here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=100&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I'm not sure how much better it is, (I'll move it on if it isn't much better) but I'm finding the 12-24 a bit lacking in image pop. It's also too wide at 12 for most landscape stuff.

One things for sure, 12mm on FF is wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidddddddddddddddddde

 

[Soulman]

Not sure about the 12-24 but I had a Sigma 15-30 and it really struggled with flare and contrast compared to the 17-40 I've got now. It was though better at controlling distortion than the 17-40, overall I find the 17-40 an excellent lens that I use more than any other...

 

[Anorakus]

Those 5mm make all the difference at the wide end, so if you want ultimate wide angle without going fisheye, the 12-24mm is your only choice.

That said, 17mm on full frame is still seriously wide.. if that's wide enough for you, go for the 17-40.. it trumps the 12-24mm with L build quality, weatherproofing, and it takes front filters.

Don't expect miracles from either lens at the edges and corners. If you're after ultimate sharpness at extreme wide focal lengths, you'll need a prime.

A.