# Sigma 10-20mm or Canon 17-40mm L



## KhronoS (Jun 5, 2008)

I wish to buy a wide lens (as wide as it can get ) ), but a very good lens as well. 
Until recently i was convinced i will gonna buy the Canon 17-40mm f/4 "L" lens, due to the massive amount of good reviews for this one and for "L" lenses in general. But, a friend told me that i should consider the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 lens, and after reading some reviews about it and adddig the fact that it's wider and a little cheaper then the canon lens, it's really hanging in the balance with the canon lens.

Now i am asking you guys what do you think and what you recommend me?


----------



## RTP (Jun 5, 2008)

If the gear list in your signature is correct, I would stick with the 17-40.  If you get the 10-20 you'll have nothing with a focal length between 20 and the 28mm on your 28-135

I personally have the Canon 10-22, but my next lens up (in terms of focal length) is the 24-105

Is there a lens rental place near you?  If so, try them out before you buy - see which is better for you


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 5, 2008)

RTP said:


> If the gear list in your signature is correct, I would stick with the 17-40.  If you get the 10-20 you'll have nothing with a focal length between 20 and the 28mm on your 28-135



But gaps in the available focal lengths are mostly irrelevant. Some people survive purely on primes to take breathtaking shots, and they then have a lot of gaps  Total coverage of all focal lengths is totally overrated IMHO.

What I personally think more important in this case is that the OP wants a really wide lens. Assuming he is on a 1.6 crop camera, the 17mm of the 17-40 will most likely not suffice. I use the lens at 17 very often, and sometimes even wish it was a tad wider, but that is on full frame.

To go ultrawide on a 1.6 crop sensor the 17-4o is certainly not the way to go.

Not saying it is not a good lens, I love it (best value for money L glass IMHO). But for the purpose given here it is most likely not wide enough.


But as stated, try to get hold of both lenses for testing and decide yourself! You might not like ultra wide photography anyway after all


----------



## KhronoS (Jun 5, 2008)

RTP said:


> If the gear list in your signature is correct, I would stick with the 17-40.  If you get the 10-20 you'll have nothing with a focal length between 20 and the 28mm on your 28-135
> 
> I personally have the Canon 10-22, but my next lens up (in terms of focal length) is the 24-105
> 
> Is there a lens rental place near you?  If so, try them out before you buy - see which is better for you



The gap doesn't really concerns me, and i wish i had a rental place near me





Alex_B said:


> But gaps in the available focal lengths are mostly irrelevant. Some people survive purely on primes to take breathtaking shots, and they then have a lot of gaps  Total coverage of all focal lengths is totally overrated IMHO.
> 
> What I personally think more important in this case is that the OP wants a really wide lens. Assuming he is on a 1.6 crop camera, the 17mm of the 17-40 will most likely not suffice. I use the lens at 17 very often, and sometimes even wish it was a tad wider, but that is on full frame.
> 
> ...



The fact is that i am thinking about the future as well, and i want the lenses that I'm gonna buy to work on a full frame camera too, that's why I'm trying to stay away from the EF-S lenses. And I'm really more attracted by the image quality, especially the sharpness.


----------



## GeorgeUK (Jun 5, 2008)

My friend uses a Sigma 10-20 to stunning effect:

http://www.outdoorexposure.co.uk/portfolio22582.html

If you want a wide lens, considering the price you can't go wrong imo. 17, in the scheme of things isn't v wide.

Canon do their own wide angle (10-22) but it is quite a lot more expensive! If you can afford that... :thumbup:


----------



## Arch (Jun 5, 2008)

I use the Sigma 10-20 too, its a winner in my book... so very very wide, you shouldn't be dissapointed with it.


----------



## KhronoS (Jun 5, 2008)

Thanks, guys, I'm starting to lean over to the sigma lens


----------



## JimmyO (Jun 5, 2008)

Arch said:


> I use the Sigma 10-20 too, its a winner in my book... so very very wide, you shouldn't be dissapointed with it.



+1
Having used both i can say that the 17-40 wont give you that wide angle feel, but the sigma, thats a whole nother story. All you have to do is try it out once, and you look into the view finder and can pretty much see the whole room your in, then you understand.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 5, 2008)

Arch said:


> I use the Sigma 10-20 too, its a winner in my book... so very very wide, you shouldn't be dissapointed with it.


 
+1

I have been using a friends Sigma 10-20 as a loaner to see if I wanted to buy it. Holy cow. It took me about 10 seconds to go "Oh yes, we'll be buying this lens... _now_." 

The optical quality is quite good (and comparable to, or better than, other wide-angles), it feels very solid and is a pleasure to work with. I'm really impressed with it so far. It competes well on the ratings compared to most other ultra-wide NIKON lenses... even against many of the less-wide primes. I can't speak to Canon as I'm a Nikon user.

For me, the decision is about absolute necessity for width... even if there were better lenses that weren't as wide I would wind up going with this lens because I take pictures of interiors a lot and I absolutely have to have the width to get as much of the room as I can. If you're not doing this kind of thing, then the 10mm might be overkill and if there is a better quality lens with decent width you may consider that as an alternative.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 5, 2008)

17mm just isn't all that wide on a crop camera like yours.  10mm is much, much wider.

There really isn't a good solution to the problem of wanting an ultra wide angle lens and wanting to stay away from EF-S type lenses.  Although, I think Tamron has a 12-24mm lens that is usable on full frame.

I considered the Sigma 10-20mm but went with the Canon 10-22mm instead.  It's fantastic.


----------



## GeorgeUK (Jun 7, 2008)

I've just ordered the Sigma 10-20. I'll let you guys know how I get on. 

(Couldn't afford the Canon 10-22)


----------



## icassell (Jun 7, 2008)

I love my 10-20, but I have a 17-50 as well.  I use the 17-50 far more frequently (it has become my walk-around lens), but the ultrawide is lots of fun, well built, and a beautiful optic.  You need to get used to the ultrawide -- the distortion is great when you use it to your advantage.  I agree with the folks that suggest try-before-you-buy.


----------



## KhronoS (Jun 8, 2008)

Guys, you convinced me  i guess i'll buy the Sigma.. 

Thank you all


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 10, 2008)

BTW, you CAN use the sigma 10-20 on a full-frame, as long as you crop your photo.  

Considering the resolution  of current and future full-frame digitals... I don't think a bit of cropping is going to hurt IQ much.


----------



## S2K1 (Jun 10, 2008)

I have the 17-40 f/4L and on my 1D(1.3x crop factor) it isn't wide enough for me. I'll be adding either the Sigma or Canon ultra-wide zoom soon and suggest you do too if you want to go wide.


----------

