DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Pro/Cons for Sigma 12-24 II & Canon 16-35 II

Started Nov 28, 2012 | Discussions thread
Robert Sheldon Senior Member • Posts: 2,272
Re: What's wrong with the Canon 17-40?
1

vvv14 wrote:

BAK,

There's nothing wrong with 17-40: it's an excellent lens for its price. It's just that i'm looking for something better. I know 16-35 is better and I'm trying to find out if Sigma comes close to it or if the extra 4mm at the wide end are worth the other shortcomings. You might say that if it's quality i'm looking for, I should got for 17TS or a Zeiss, but those are out of my price range.

BAK wrote:

A 17-40 saves lots of money and works fine at f8.

I have the Canon 17-40.   I use it for scenics and covered bridge photographs.  At f/13-16 I can see nothing wrong with its sharpness.  From all the reviews I read the 16-35 is better at f/2.8 but by the time you stop down to f/8 it is very hard to tell the difference.

-- hide signature --

Bob Sheldon
Photo Gallery at
www.bobsheldon.com

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
BAK
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow