A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > Canon 17-40 f/4L vs Sigma...

Featured Equipment Deals

Featured Member: Alf Bailey Read More

Featured Member: Alf Bailey

Photo.net featured member Alf Bailey talks about his landscape photography and portfolio of images.

Latest Equipment Articles

Sony a6300-First Impressions Read More

Sony a6300-First Impressions

When Sony's invitation to spend a couple of days shooting with the new a6300 in Miami arrived via email, I didn't have to think twice before sending my RSVP. Announced in February and shipping this...

Canon 17-40 f/4L vs Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX

Ivan Ping-Ching Cheng , Jun 18, 2003; 03:35 a.m.

I own a Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 HSM EX. I am pretty disappointed by its performance mainly because of its severe loss of light and blur at the edge and corner even at f/5.6-8!!

I am considering the new 17-40 but most reviews and comments I can find on the web are mainly based on DSLR, which 1.6x factor cannot reflect the quality of the edge portion of a picture. Did anyone use this lens with a film EOS? How's its performance and does it have my aforementioned problems (loss of light and blur at the corner)? Thanks in advance.


Andre Appel , Jun 18, 2003; 05:13 a.m.

A little bit below a similar question has been posted
Check out this link for a review of the lens on a FULL SIZE CMOS DSLR


Ivan Ping-Ching Cheng , Jun 18, 2003; 05:23 a.m.

Andre: I have already read this review, but I am looking for some real user experience. Thanks.

Lex Bowden , Jun 18, 2003; 05:42 a.m.

Hi there Ivan, I've had a 17-40mm for a few weeks now and use it on an EOS 3. I mostly shoot slides (provia 100F) and have been very impressed with the lens. I have also used a 16-35mm L f2.8 and found that at f4 the new lens is every bit as good...the contrast actually seems a little better. There is a little distortion around the edges at 17mm (but you would expect that) and is probably why you want a very wide angle zoom anyway. I am very impressed with the lens and had I not already had one, I would certainly go out a get one. If I could have either the 16-35mm or the 17-40mm, I would take the 17-40mm. One thing you will have to factor into the purchase price is the cost of some form of filter to fully 'seal the front of the lens. The front element of the lens goes in and out a little when zooming and the filter just seals off this movement from the outside world. Great lens, you will be happy with it.

Beau Hooker , Jun 18, 2003; 07:18 a.m.

Hi Ivan, I have the 17-40 f/4L and have used it on both my EOS 1V as well as my 10D. I really like it and it's quite a bit less expensive than the 16-35 f/2.8L. It has a very useful range on both cameras. I've found corner sharpness good, very little flare, and all my pics with it have been sharp and contrasty. It doesn't quite hang with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS in terms of sharpness, but not too many lenses do. I give it 2 thumbs up! Best wishes . . .

rendy setiadjie , Jun 18, 2003; 12:09 p.m.

Ivan, I'm just purchased 17-40 mm f/4L to be used for my EOS 3. Comparing with 16-35 mm f/2.8L & 24-70 mm f/2.8L, 17-40 mm results are darker than the other 2 contenders on 17 mm until 35 mm where all lenses overlapped. The results that I get from 17-40 mm are great even above 28 mm range, the pictures are bit softer than 16-35 or 24-70.

Hope this will help..

happy shooting ! rendy

Ivan Ping-Ching Cheng , Jun 20, 2003; 08:15 p.m.

Thank you all for your valuable comments!! I have just bought it yesterday. I have used the last few slides in my camera to test it out. Comparing to the pic taken by Sigma 17-35, those by 17-40 seem a LOT sharper.

sebastian shaw , Nov 10, 2003; 09:27 a.m.

Off topic: hey do you live in hong kong? Im thinking about getting a sigma 17-35 for my eos 30, dont have any at man shing, could you recommend any reliable places to get the lens?

Back to top

Notify me of Responses