Canon 17-40 f4 L vs Sigma 17-50 f2.8

Jakelapham

Jakelapham

Member
Hi,

I recently purchased a 70D and Sigma 17-50 2.8. The focus ring was faulty, extremely sticky, so I sent it back to DWI. I am now considering the Canon 17-40 f4 L series lens. My question is; is the L-quality glass, better build quality, nice focus ring and possibly increased sharpness worth it the 2.2f loss?

Which lense would you go for on a crop body?
 
The Canon's only worth it if you're sure you're going to go full frame someday... I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not based on the fact that you just got a 70D.

I agree with the tamron option if you're sticking to Aps-c cameras.
 
Get the Sigma 18-35 1.8. It's a miracle lens. And to cover the longer end, just grab a cheap manual focus 50 1.8.
 
My only beef with this lens is 18-35 is a very short range and for $600 less you can have a tamron 17-50 and when it comes to video, they'll both perform about the same minus 1 and 1/3 stops of light.
 
Yeah I guess if you're just shooting skiing this is true. But I shoot a lot of narrative shorts, bouldering, and other stuff where I often want shallow DOF. Also I use it on a GH3 with a speed booster, so between the speed booster and a normal adapter, the range is actually 24-70mm equivalent. It is also just a much better built lens than the tamron. The focus and zoom rings are the best ones I've ever seen on an autofocus lens.
 
you should buy a 5dmk3 then lol

I think you'd achieve the same DOF with a 17-50 as you would with the 18-35 on a gh3 with a speed booster.
 
I considered it at one point lol.

I shot a music video with one once though and I actually like my GH3 better, and it cost less than half as much. I don't really have much desire to shoot raw at the moment, and I hardly ever shoot digital photos, so it really wouldn't be worth it.

Anyway, OP; IMO the 17-40 is a waste of money if you're shooting on a crop sensor. The Tamron is a great value for a pretty good standard zoom. The Sigma is also a great deal if you don't mind spending a little more (I think it costs about the same as the 17-40) and you think you'll want the f1.8 aperture. The build quality and optics are shockingly good for a sub $1000 zoom lens.
 
Yeah I also agree with this, it all depends on budget and such. If you're going to use an 18-35 range a lot, its worth it no doubt.

I've used my 17-50 many times from commercial production to ski edits and it has never let me down. I also shoot with an fs100 which I can use up to 6400 ISO without any issues, so with a canon dslr a 18-35 1.8 could be nice.
 
I owned the 17-50 when I had a crop sensor and loved it. Wish I could have kept it when I moved to FF. I ended up getting the 17-40 and love the quality of the glass but I sure do miss the speed of the Tamron.
 
If the 17-40 range fits your needs, get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 without a doubt.

That Sigma 17-50 is not a very good lens and you will end up wanting better. People recommend the Tamron, which you should only consider because you can get it for $300. It's mediocre, but insanely cheap.
 
...for video, the Tamron for 299 used is no worse than any other crop standard fast zoom. The lens will for the most part outresolve 1080p

Compare it directly against the much more expensive Canon version, and it holds it own quite well. Well enough that people don't spend 200+ more for the Canon.
 
Glad someone around here gets this...

Comparing a lens for video use and photo use makes a huge difference. 1080p is 2MP haha
 
True. But sharpness isnt everything. Distortion, contrast, bokeh quality, color rendition, flare control, CA control, etc are all just as important for IQ.
 
...if you're going to seriously complain about a lens of this high a quality as it is, then just Join those who have jumped on the Leica train. Oh, and be sure not to buy any inferior Voightlander products.. my god the colour rendition! the horror! it doesn't say Leica Summilux! Here's a tip for everyone. If you're shooting an APS-C sized sensor, don't complain about the quality of the lens unless it's REALLY that bad.

Anyway, the optical difference between the Tamron 17-50 and something 'higher quality' like the Canon and Nikon 17-55 is soo minuscule in each of these areas...

In fact, at the wide end, the Tamron is less distorted than the Canon... and the lens only offers maybe a SLIIIIGHT bit more vingetting than the Canon... and it gives the same speed in a more compact, lighter package.

really, there's no reason not to get it if you have at least 300$ to spend on an APS-c standard fast zoom and you're not a snob against 3rd party glass.

 
I have no experience with the Canon, but the difference in rendering between the Tamron and the Nikon is night and day. The nervous bokeh of the Tamron is annoying for photography. The Tamron also has ugly smearing in the corners. The Nikon is quite a beast of its own (and not an option for Canon shooters).

It's true that this stuff doesn't matter as much for video especially at the wide end, but the OP is talking about photo with some video on the side.

I'd just go with the Sigma 18-35 which is basically a zoom and a prime lens in one. Sharp and great rendering covering all wide focal lengths, and really affordable.
 
So the tamron then? Because it really is that bad, and if you do't think that you have REALLY low standards. I completely understand the when shooting video it's only a 2mp image argument, so then why even waste the money in the first place on a new lens and not just use the kit lens? The Current canon kit lens is just as sharp (or sharper when stopped down, and NO ONE here is filming follow cams wide open), has the same effective range, and doesn't cost a dime more assuming they got a kit which most people in this position do. With modern high iso abilities, the need for 2.8 is even less negated. And remember, we are only talking about a single stop, It's not like 2.8 will actually help you at all in real low light. So other then the price and useless stop of additional light, you get a lens with optics worse then my cell phone, a build quality that rivals the cardboard box it comes in, and the pleasure knowing you are gonna have to buy a new lens in the next ~3 years.

+1 sigma 18-35, that thing is the only lens worth buying for APS-C in that range.
 
Because the Kit lens is real slow, varifocal, and has a shitty focus ring with a short throw.

Personally, as you guys know, i'd rather use vintage primes for video than anything, but if you don't want to constantly change lenses, have at least moderately fast glass that works just fine for video, then the Tamron 17-50 is just fine.

Are the Canon/Nikon versions better? yeah. Of course... but if I'm going to spend that much on a Canon/Nikon APS-c only lens because it's better for photography? I'd MUCH rather use that money for going the full frame route.

Shit, for less than the price of a D7100 + the Nikon 17-55 you can get a full frame D610 with a 24 f2.8, a 50 f1.4, and an 85 f1.8 - which are all miles better than at equivalent focal lengths.

 
Can anyone comment on the build quality of the tamron vs a kit lens? and Would it be worth the upgrade? given I have no money right now. at all.
 
Honestly it's not THAT much better build quality wise, it's just faster through the range, constant aperture, a better focus ring, and has a metal mount. The plastic is not much different than that of Canon/Nikon's plastic lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top