Hello all,
Sorry for posting this here, I am not allowed to post in the equipment section...
I am looking for a good wide-angle lens for my Canon 5D. I heard some very mixed opinions about the Canons in the wide-angle range. I 've also seen a convincing comparison between the Sigma, Canon and a Zeiss-lens. While the Sigma did not beat the Zeiss, it was superior to the Canon.
So, anyone that uses the Sigma-lens on a 5D? Is it worth considering? Corner-sharpness is very important. I would love to have some opinions. Thanks,
Dietrich
Posted by Guy Tal on February 20, 2007 at 10:00 AM
I have a friend who owns it and rarely uses it because it will not take polarizing or graduated ND filters. The built-in hood prevents any filters from being mounted to the front of the lens.
As for Canon lenses - I have been extremely happy with my 17-40. Don't judge a lens by the test charts. They only tell part of the story.
Thanks Guy. The built-in hood is indeed a bad point. This removes it from my list as fast as it got there...
But it was not test-charts I was referring to. I have seen some image samples and the 17-40mm performed significantly worse than the others. But maybe it was a bad example. I am a bit sceptical now
Dietrich
Posted by Guy Tal on February 20, 2007 at 10:40 AM
From what I understand there's some sample variation with this model so if you plan to buy it you may want to compare a couple of them and pick the best one. Mine has been extremely sharp and performs beautifully. No complaints at all (and it brings a smile to my face to think of all the money I saved compared to something like the 16-35).
Guy
Posted by Tom Webster on February 20, 2007 at 10:43 AM
I think the 17-40L is a much maligned lens. I own it and the images have been excellent. I have the highly regarded Contax/Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f 3.4 zoom that I use on my EOS cameras via a Contax/EOS adapter. My copy of the 17-40L is every bit as good as the Vario-Sonnar.
Posted by Bret Edge on February 20, 2007 at 10:59 AM
I own the 17-40mm Canon and have been very happy with it. I haven't had any issues with sharpness or otherwise. I think Guy's suggestion to try a couple different ones is spot on.
Posted by Don Miller on February 20, 2007 at 1:23 PM
I suggest waiting a few weeks and see Canon announces any new wide lenses. I've purchase contax (zeiss) primes at 28-35-50. I'm not often an ultra wide shooter, and I have the large lee filters to hold over the 15-30, so the sigma works for me.
Where Canon lineup is difficult for the landscape photographer is with the wide primes. I don't care to purchase and carry the big L fast primes just to use occasionally stopped down. As you know zeiss and olympus made some interesting choices in slow, small lenses. Above 50 I find the 70-200/4 IS adequate for all landscape situations.
My current practice is to typically start with the 24-105, and switch to a prime if the scene I frame falls in the range of the lenses I'm carrying.
I'd suggest to consider the Sigma 12-24...on the 5D it is wildly wide and it has good image quality if you stop down a bit. My review (with RAW samples on 5D): Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM Field Review
Thanks for all the responses! I guess I will try the 17-40 then...
I also thought about using zeiss-lenses, but they are rather expensive and since this is a hobby...
I also have the 24-105 and I am quite happy with it. But I want to get wider and also have some more telephoto-range, therefore the 70-400/4 IS that Don mentioned is also very interesting.
Your posts made me more confident about the Canon-lens again, thanks.
Dietrich
juza thanks for that link, those samples look impressive! It would also nicely "fit" below my 24-105mm, without any focal lenth-overlap or gaps.
Dietrich
Discussion
9 repliesSorry for posting this here, I am not allowed to post in the equipment section...
I am looking for a good wide-angle lens for my Canon 5D. I heard some very mixed opinions about the Canons in the wide-angle range. I 've also seen a convincing comparison between the Sigma, Canon and a Zeiss-lens. While the Sigma did not beat the Zeiss, it was superior to the Canon.
So, anyone that uses the Sigma-lens on a 5D? Is it worth considering? Corner-sharpness is very important. I would love to have some opinions. Thanks,
Dietrich
As for Canon lenses - I have been extremely happy with my 17-40. Don't judge a lens by the test charts. They only tell part of the story.
Guy
But it was not test-charts I was referring to. I have seen some image samples and the 17-40mm performed significantly worse than the others. But maybe it was a bad example. I am a bit sceptical now
Dietrich
Guy
Where Canon lineup is difficult for the landscape photographer is with the wide primes. I don't care to purchase and carry the big L fast primes just to use occasionally stopped down. As you know zeiss and olympus made some interesting choices in slow, small lenses. Above 50 I find the 70-200/4 IS adequate for all landscape situations.
My current practice is to typically start with the 24-105, and switch to a prime if the scene I frame falls in the range of the lenses I'm carrying.
I also thought about using zeiss-lenses, but they are rather expensive and since this is a hobby...
I also have the 24-105 and I am quite happy with it. But I want to get wider and also have some more telephoto-range, therefore the 70-400/4 IS that Don mentioned is also very interesting.
Your posts made me more confident about the Canon-lens again, thanks.
Dietrich
Dietrich