Sigma 12-24 or Canon 17-40?
Sigma 12-24 or Canon 17-40?
Author
Discussion

g_stacey

Original Poster:

644 posts

263 months

Thursday 12th November 2009
quotequote all
Any opinions on the above. Need (want) a wide angle for trip to Australia soon. Will be on a full frame camera. Focal lengths' aside, from the web searching Iv'e done the Sigma gets better reviews, and has less distortion.
Thanks
G

SMB

1,523 posts

296 months

Thursday 12th November 2009
quotequote all
The 12-24 is really an ultra wide on full frame, I managed to get one cheapa couple of months ago, so use it on a crop camera with a view to longer term upgrade to FF. The sigma works best stopped down F7 +, on a FF it will be soft in the corners but it is an ultra wide and the distortions are well managed. Colours are very good too. Only gripe is that fitting a filter or ND filter holder is impossible on FF at 12mm. You can just about get away with it on a crop.

I've not used the 17-40 but I'd expect the IQ to be better, just you lose the Ultra wide capability.

Hedgeman

738 posts

261 months

Thursday 12th November 2009
quotequote all
I've got the 12-24 sigma and use it on a FF body. To be honest it's a pretty specialised piece of kit and although capable of some great shots, I don't find myself using it that much. Think being able to stand next to the Gherkin or Tower 42 in London and still get the whole building in the frame...

For general landscape I'd probably go with the 17-40L.


Murph7355

41,989 posts

286 months

Thursday 12th November 2009
quotequote all
Hedgeman said:
I've got the 12-24 sigma and use it on a FF body. To be honest it's a pretty specialised piece of kit and although capable of some great shots, I don't find myself using it that much. Think being able to stand next to the Gherkin or Tower 42 in London and still get the whole building in the frame...

For general landscape I'd probably go with the 17-40L.
I'd second this.

4hero

4,505 posts

241 months

Thursday 12th November 2009
quotequote all
I have the 17-40, although I use it on a 40D I cannot fault it for quality. It really is an excellent lens for the price, and very sharp!

g_stacey

Original Poster:

644 posts

263 months

Thursday 12th November 2009
quotequote all
I have a 24-105 canon lens, so felt I needed something pretty wide like a 12-24. Have just trawled' through Flickr for 17-40 shots and am thinking the 17-40 could be wide enough. I think I may try both lenses on my Canon at the shop.

Thank for advice.
G

JohnS

938 posts

314 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
On my trip to Australia (Perth) last year, I took my 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 F4L.

I used the 24-105 for 90% of the shots for the IS, as I didn't have a tripod with me.