I've been considering the 17~40mm L ever since I got my 5D. I love my sigma 12~24mm EX DG, but sometimes I wonder if it's as sharp as a L UWA zoom might be. I also would love to have the weather sealing of the L as well as the easier filter solutions. (Yes you can use filters on the 12~24mm, even on FF, but you're limited to what Cokin makes in their x-pro series, and they're not cheap. The CP doesn't work, but anything rectangular does!).

I was down at my local camera shop on Friday checking out what bag will work best for me (still on the fence between the crumpler 6 or 7 mill) and I noticed they had a 17-40mm L on the shelf. The guys know me and asked if I wanted to try it out. Since I had my 5D there anyway as well as the 12~24mm I figured it would be a decent quick test to see if it was worth considering or not...

Now this was an impromptu test, so yes some settings ARE NOT IDEAL. But those same settings do show a more "real world" situation:
*No Tripod!
*ISO set to 800 tried to keep it as low as possible as well as get manageable shutter speeds
*different exposures one lens is an f/4, the other is a f/4.5 at 17mm and f/5.6 at 24mm
*max apertures where used
*JPEGs straight from the camera, no PP in PS at all

Here's the 24mm comparison (I've listed what is what at the bottom, but look first and get an unbiased opinion first):


17mm comparison:


24mm image from the Canon:


24mm from the Sigma:


17mm from the Canon:


17mm from the sigma:


12mm Sigma for reference:


In those first comparisons the LEFT IMAGE is the L and the RIGHT is the EX DG.

Now the interesting things I see is that the exposure jumped from 1/60th with the canon at f/4 to 1/20th with the sigma at f/4.5 on the 17mm shots. On the 24mm shots the canon was still at f/4 and 1/60th while the sigma went to f/5.6 and 1/15th. So even with a slight adjustment in max aperture there is a bigger adjustment in shutter speed than I would have thought. Also the Sigma likes to let more light in than the canon. IMHO this is not a great thing because (experience talking) it tends to blow highlights easily. Also in an indoor setting this drops the shutter speeds lower than they need to be forcing blurred shots unless you dial in a ~-1.5EV.

As for the IQ, the sharpness is very hard to judge. In some places it's better in one image, in other places it's better in the other. Looking at the first image the lowpro text is sharper on the canon, but the stitching detail is sharper on the sigma. On the corner image the bar seems better on the canon, but the text on the tag seems better on the sigma... Also notice how you can actually see the price on the tag on the canon, it's gone on the sigma (some of that is lost contrast, some exposure due to the Sigma over exposing)

In the 17mm comparison, there is a lot more CA apparent in the Canon. Also the closer pink bag is softer. Is that IQ or the f/4 DOF -vs- the f/5.6 with the sigma? Both are wide open. At the center of the frame the canon appear sharper again (text on lowepro bags). But then at the corners the sigma seems sharper. Remember the sigma is HAND HELD at 1/15th here while the canon has a much better hand holding shutter speed of 1/60th...

It's also interesting to notice the extra noise in the canon images. This is only because of the exposure difference, but you can clearly see it. This should prove that in a high ISO setting, over exposing (and losing a bit of the highlights) is probably worth it to lower the noise significantly.

The build quality of the lenses was also very interesting to see. The L is an L. The Sigma is an EX DG. Both are rock solid, but the sigma has their trademark crappy paint. The L is noticeably lighter in the hand. It's also smaller in diameter as well as length. The hood makes it harder to fit in a bag though. Both have lightning quick AF.

In the end I feel the canon has a much better exposure than the Sigma. The sigma needs to be baby sat a bit in that department. Because of the exposure and contrast of the lenses, the Canon has a few details in both shadows and highlights that are gone from the sigma image. The canon has much more apparent CA though. The fact the canon can maintain a 1/60th shutter speed is quite nice if you're going to be in low light situations...

For ultimate IQ I'm not sure which is better. The canon is probably better if you need any low light shots. I'd love to get one outside and test some real landscapes on a tripod so I can eliminate some of the issues (high ISO) and also do a comparison at the same apertures... For now I'm afraid I'm as much on the fence as I was before I tried it. It's not a whole lot better for sure. It's closer to an equal, just with some differences. I would lose the 12mm end of the sigma. If I were to get the 17~40mm L I'd also get the 15mm FE so cover myself when I need/want something crazy wide with distortions.

What does anyone else see/think?

Well I don't like making comparisons at different apertures, unless you really intend to shoot wide open a lot. I'd like to see 5.6 and f8 comparisons.

In the first two the Canon seems to have better contrast. Sharpness seems similar, however the Sigma looks "better" because the images are dark, but the sigma image is brighter by a bit so it brings out more details. The canon still seems to be resolving the text and details better, the sigma is blurrier in the first comparison.

It's harder to tell in the second image, and I'm not sure your focus is the same from looking at the zoomed angle.

Either way, not really adequate work to get a fair comparison of the two lenses unfortunately (IMO). You should really compare them at the same aperture, chromatic aberrations will usually be worse at a larger aperture (even though they're not bad with the 17-40).

I'm thinking a Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II is in your future (you're becoming a prime whore, right? I think I read that somewhere.)

Honestly, like you said, it's hard to judge based on your quick comparison (especially since the Sigma was handheld at 1/15) ... both look good to me. For some reason I'm liking the colors better on the Sigma, though.

Yeah, I agree, and I'd love to test them out much more extensively, but I need to buy the 17~40mm to do so... It's in my cart at B&H right now with the 15mm. I'm so tempted to buy them and try them, then either sell the 12~24mm or return the canons. I also have time this weekend to "play" with then and do a proper comparison...

It's just that it's $1200 to do it... Sure I'd get over $600 back selling the sigma, but I don't want to put anything on my CC, and I have to if I'm thinking about returning it....

Originally Posted by SanjuNana

For some reason I'm liking the colors better on the Sigma, though.

I notice that too, but I think it's due to the brighter exposure.... that messes with your eyes quite a bit (and flaws the test, but this is what shots would look like IRL if you had to shoot inside like that).

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

It's not a whole lot better for sure. It's closer to an equal, just with some differences.

I think that sums it up, and that's why I intend on having both lenses some day.


Hey I've got an idea, why don't you ship me your 12-24 and I'll send you my 17-40 so you can have some time to really test it out?

I wish you didn't live in ****ing texas...
My idea was to borrow each others lenses for a week, so we could each do our own side by side comparisons...

From those photos, the Canon also seems to have more light falloff in the corners, though it may be because the images are a little darker overall that it appears to have more falloff.

Other than that, I agree with what others have said--I think since you are so on the fence, more time with them together would probably be prudent.

Mark

Like emorphien said, an aperture to aperture comparison would've been better. Neither lens is particularly fast, so either a tripod or flash would be necessary for darker, environmental shots.

It says a lot about Sigma that it's in a toss-up with a Canon L. I didn't keep my 17-40 for long because I wasn't impressed, and already had the range covered. Seems like that's the case here Ben - the lens does ok when compared to something you already have.

Just curious, by the way ... is the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM in the mix, too, or does it's price point (~$1500 vs. ~$650 for the other two) put it out of the running?

There's also the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM for ~$500

*shrug* Just throwing some other options out there ... my widest is the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the digital rebel (I'll likely eventually get either the 10-22mm Canon or 10-20mm Sigma, though, since I'll be staying with the 1.6x crop bodies for a while (unless a dirt cheap 5D should happen to fall in my lap)).

I'd consider the 17~35mm f/2.8 L or the 16~35mm f/2.8 L (older versions, so less money) but the sigma 17~35mm f2.8~4 is out. I use to own one and wasn't a fan, and I want something that's a consistent aperture (even if it is f/4) and a consistent length (the sigma gets longer when you zoom).

so should I put it on the CC today, and test it this weekend???

Or just say they're close enough to not worry about it and not get it?

It's sitting in my cart right now with the fisheye.

I think you need to spend some more money!

Originally Posted by jblaze5779

I think you need to spend some more money!

It's the last thing I need to do...
It's just been bugging me lately. The big issues I have with the Sigma are that I over use the 12mm end and shouldn't, and when I come back from shooting and look at the colors of it's pictures, they require a ton more PP than my other lenses. I'm not sure if that's a UWA issue or that specific lens issue... I just wish I could rent it. The only places around here have the 16~35mm, but not 17-40mm...

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I just wish I could rent it. The only places around here have the 16~35mm, but not 17-40mm...

I'm telling you, we could swap for a trial period for about $10 in shipping.



Well, $20 if you want it back.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I just wish I could rent it. The only places around here have the 16~35mm, but not 17-40mm...

I'm telling you, we could swap for a trial period for about $10 in shipping.



Well, $20 if you want it back.

That sounds like the best choice... that is until you find out tardy doesn't want his lens back

Originally Posted by mkfotos

That sounds like the best choice... that is until you find out tardy doesn't want his lens back

He's probably as impetuous as I am and has probably already got a tracking number.

:sneeze:

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

:sneeze:

was I right?

well I have a order number.....
no tracking number yet, but I did squeak it in right before the 3:30pm deadline... I'll see what comes in my email tonight.

On the one hand I'm excited. On the other I hope it's no better and I can return it, but know how it really compares.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

On the other I hope it's no better and I can return it...

Magic 8 ball says: "Outlook not so good"

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Magic 8 ball says: "Outlook not so good"

I just want it to either be clearly better so I don't feel bad about selling the 12~24mm or clearly worse so I can return it and not feel bad (about sending it back to B&H, and about not wanting it any more...). Either of those options and I'll be happy, but if it's even with the sigma, then it's going to be a bummer. If that is the case, it will most likely go back because it really only offers constant f/4 if everything else is the same.

"if it's even with the sigma, then it's going to be a bummer. If that is the case, it will most likely go back because it really only offers constant f/4 if everything else is the same."

Uh oh...

What oh?

If the IQ is the same on the 2 lenses, the loss in FL is not worth the gain in aperture IMHO. We'll see when it gets here though, as I know the build is addicting... At least I know I'll be having a fun weekend. Saturday night is drinking with half of the NESIC OTters no less...

Just thinking that you'll probably be sending the lens back s'all.

I'm bettin' he keeps it.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

I'm bettin' he keeps it.

+1

+2 for keeping.

The pics do look close, but different. I mostly just noticed the color difference and slight sharpness difference.

So are we taking bets on whether or not this one will get shipped before the weekend?

Looking forward to your thoughts on this lens.


Scott

Well I didn't get a confirm yesterday... It's still processing, but I'd bet I get a tracking number this afternoon, then it's delivered tomorrow.

The bummer is had I not been on the fence all day yesterday and just ordered it earlier I would have it today... Oh well. The other issue is I've loaned my 12~24mm to a NASIOC member coming up here. He leaves next weekend, but I'm going to be up in NH/Boston at an OTter party so I was going to drop it off then... Now I think I'll have to work something else out as I want to be able to test it all weekend... He had the 12~24mm on his 5D and sold it for a 16~35mm for similar reasons, but wants to borrow the 12~24mm for vacation.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

....then it's delivered tomorrow.

careful, you could still get jacobsened.

Yep, I could very well still get jacobsened, but I now have a tracking number.

HARTFORD,CT, US 09/19/2007 8:19 P.M. IN TRANSIT TO

Delivered!

Damn, the 15mm FE is tiny, and the front element is HUGE!!!

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Delivered!

Damn, the 15mm FE is tiny, and the front element is HUGE!!!

pics now, dammit!

that picture of my lightbox is pretty interesting...

thinktank lensbag
17~40mm lenscap
15mm FE lenscap
2 busts
17~40mm L
12~24mm EX DG
1D w/ 50mm f/1.4
tripod strap
random beads/stones I need to take a picture of
rear lens cap
body cap
12mm kenko tube
12~24mm front cap....

oh, and that space is like 4'x2'x2'...

super jealous, I didnt know you ordered all 3?!

All 3?

I own the sigma 12~24mm.
Well I guess I do own all the now, but I've owned the 12~24mm for over 2 years now. It's the oldest item in my kit.

ah gotcha, I thought you were shopping for one over the other and decided to get both. How do you like the FE? thats on my list.

Well it's very interesting so far, but ^^^ that's the only shot I've taken with it...
It's very "cute"... It's about the length of the 50mm f/1.4 but is a smaller diameter. The front element is humongous... It just looks comical. So far I'm hoping the 17~40mm is MUCH sharper so I can keep it and the 15mm FE... . If it's not they're both going back...

I'm strapped to my desk all day, but I'll try to get some pictures tonight between jobs...
Then tomorrow night hopefully I'll have some time to shoot something.
Saturday/Sunday are pretty much lens test days along with a few "honey do" items.

OK, first test shots:
15mm FE:










it's a very interesting lens. I haven't tried defishing anything yet though... In 2 of those shots my jacket is in the bottom left corner (where you can't see it in the viewfinder)...

17~40mm:













^"thrown" together using PS:CS3's photomerge, yes there is an obvious transition in it...^

So far it seems pretty sharp looking at the images at 100%. I did not shoot the same things with anything else so it's not a good comparison, but the corners at f/4 seem better than what I'd guess I'd get with the sigma... I'll have to wait until I can to a fair test to really judge it though. The one thing I have notice, more so than with the sigma, is CA. Again, these are not comparison shots at all, I just took my 2 new toys out for ~15 minutes to see what they were like. I'll be watching the CA carefully in the comparisons.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

OK, first test shots:



it's a very interesting lens. I haven't tried defishing anything yet though... In 2 of those shots my jacket is in the bottom left corner (where you can't see it in the viewfinder)...

I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw this one. Makes me seasick almost.

great shots Ben! Those take with the 5D or 1D? Colors are perfect. FE may wind up in the same cart as the 70-200L.

And how bad do you think the CA is in the 17-40? It's hard to tell in your web-size images, in fact I don't notice any at all. But, I'm not the most nit-picky observer to begin with.

Originally Posted by subimatt

FE may wind up in the same cart as the 70-200L.

PM'd ya about the 70-200.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw this one. Makes me seasick almost.

especially if you scroll down fast... My head tilts immediately...
Makes me want to print it, mat it, and frame it, then hand it crooked on the wall...

Originally Posted by subimatt

great shots Ben! Those take with the 5D or 1D? Colors are perfect. FE may wind up in the same cart as the 70-200L.

5D, and yes, the colors are quite good.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

And how bad do you think the CA is in the 17-40? It's hard to tell in your web-size images, in fact I don't notice any at all. But, I'm not the most nit-picky observer to begin with.

They're noticable on the edges of high contrast areas. Look at the lights in the elevator pic, and the edges of the ropes in the dock pictures. With the FE I don't care at all. With the 17~40mm, it's this or the sigma, so I'll have to see what has what characteristics then decide. So far (maybe just because it's a new toy?) I'm liking the L a lot. The build is awesome.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

especially if you scroll down fast... My head tilts immediately...
Makes me want to print it, mat it, and frame it, then hang it crooked on the wall...

Awesome! Definitely do that.

They're noticable on the edges of high contrast areas. Look at the lights in the elevator pic, and the edges of the ropes in the dock pictures. With the FE I don't care at all. With the 17~40mm, it's this or the sigma, so I'll have to see what has what characteristics then decide. So far (maybe just because it's a new toy?) I'm liking the L a lot. The build is awesome.

I can see the CA in the elevator lights, but that's with the FE. I'd have to see the rope edges full size to see it in the 17-40 shots.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

I can see the CA in the elevator lights, but that's with the FE. I'd have to see the rope edges full size to see it in the 17-40 shots.

Yeah, looking at these now it is very hard to see (which would hint a print would hide it well too if at the appropriate distance). Look at the shot of the dock and the lobster yacht "Beavertail". Along the left edge of it's bowline is the only CA I can still see at that size... It has a distinct red edge. But this is also at f/4.5 (almost wide open) on a very high contrast area of the shot, so it's where I'd expect it. I just don't know if the sigma would do this, but I'll be sure to try to get them both to do it in similar situations this weekend.