Canon 17-40L Vs Sigma 15-30 EX (On FF)

[501cards]

I am looking for some advice here,

Trying to decide between Sigma 15-30 EX & Canon 17-40 for the very little Wide stuff that I do, (Have both and 1 Must go!)

At first I really thought it would be the 17-40 as I really like the Sigma 15-30 (Maybe because it has been in my bag longer).

Anyway by chance yesterday I had taken a similar shot to one I already had on the 15-30, and now I am not sure which way to go.

Both Taken on a 5D MKII - Both cropped from unprocessed raw files.

Not sure if EXIF is intact on these so

15-30 was 15mm 1/250 f9 ISO 100
17-40 was 17mm 1/125 f8 ISO 100

Conditions were very different in the sky of course, but apart from that similar layout etc.

SIGMA 15-30 FULL IMAGE

SIGMA 15-30 100% CROP (Top Right)

CANON 17-40L FULL IMAGE

CANON 17-40L 100% CROP (Top Right)

I was sort of shocked by the amount of corner blur on the 15-30 compared to the 17-40, I still love the colour reproduction from the Sigma, and also (Not shown here feel the 17-40 suffers really with CA that the 15-30 does not)

So I suppose what I am asking is, would I be mad keeping the 15-30 and dumping the 17-40 looking at the above, just because I prefer the overall feel of the images the 15-30 produces?

 

[woof woof]

"I prefer the overall feel of the images the 15-30 produces"

Seems to be all you need to know.

 

[alastairb]

the 17-40 is noticibly sharper, and with the bright blue sky would show more ca compared to the sigmas as the bg there was clouds.

 

[woof woof]

The OP does say that the 17-40 does not show CA in this shot, although I'm sure I've read that this lens is known to show CA.

 

[501cards]

The OP does say that the 17-40 does not show CA in this shot, although I'm sure I've read that this lens is known to show CA.

The CA is not bad in this shot, but it can be a real pain on the 17-40 I have at times, (Although saying that its easier to get rid of CA in photoshop than blurry corners!)