Canon 17-40mm f/4 L

Anorakus

Anorakus

Messages
836
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just ordered a Sigma 12-24mm for my 5D mk II, but I'm now starting to wonder if I should have gone for the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L instead..

As it's not too late to send it back for a swap, anyone care to comment on the Canon's IQ etc. ?

Pros for the Sigma:

Extreme rectiliniear wide-angle unmatched anywhere else


Pros for the Canon:

Doesn't appear to suffer from variation in quality between lenses
Normal front element means I can use my polarising filter on it
Rangle of focal lengths makes it more suitable for using as a walkabout lens
Fixed aperture across the range
It's a L :)


TIA,

A. :)
 
It depends on how wide you wanted to go and what you plan on shooting. 12 on a full frame is sooo wwwiiiiiddddeeee. Even 24 (its maximum) is still really wide. It will have an awesome effect but you may be a little restricted when using it. Sigma are reported to have issues with quality control, so as soon as you get it do thorough test to check it focuses correctly etc.

Have a play with it and see what you think. Personally I'm a big fan of the 17-40. it's a tried and tested lens, it's well built, weather resistant, constant aperture and has a little more practical zoom range.
 
I use the 17-40 very regularly and the IQ on mine is phenomenal. Well worth a punt!
 
Like the 24-105, the 17-40 suffers from barrel distortion at the wide end. You'll notice it particularly on seascapes or anywhere where the horizon is prominent.

It's fine by about 24mm though.

I only use it at the wide end very occasionally. I can't imagine needing anything wider.
 
Thanks to all the replies.. changed my order to the 17-40 L :)

I might still pick up a 12-24mm one day, but the 17-40 sounds like an ideal walkabout lens for our hols.. it will probably end up being a permanent fixture on my 5D. Plus it's pretty cheap for another bit of L glass!

A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top