L Series Lenses

[Walter S]

Originally Posted by LSRC Railfan

NO SIGMA!!! I wouldn't recommend ANY Sigma lens to ANYBODY. I have the 17-70. I'm extremely unhappy! The TERRIBLE autofocus has ruined many, many shots.

I know a pro who shoots Nikon and he uses all sigma professional lenses. Just because one lens is bad doesnt mean they all are. If you use a bad EFS 18-55 would you degrade the entire Canon line?

[Joey Bowman]

Originally Posted by Walter S

I know a pro who shoots Nikon and he uses all sigma professional lenses. Just because one lens is bad doesnt mean they all are. If you use a bad EFS 18-55 would you degrade the entire Canon line?

I would have to agree with this comment.

I have owned 4 different sigma lenses, two from the "Ex" series.

My 50mm f/2.8 EX is tack sharp, very nice colors and contrast, focus is slow but thats fine, its not an "HSM" lens. Well built too, it is the only lens that I own that has been dropped, (more than once at that) no problems what so ever.

My 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM is very nice, focusing is pretty fast (not as fast as the L series counterpart), I am happy with its sharpness though from time to time it can be soft, other times it can be incredibly sharp, I have a few sharp shots that blow away anything I got from the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L that I used to use.

I had a 28-70 f/2.8-4 I sold it because the AF broke for no apparent reason, ended up getting the Canon 28-135 IS USM. In all honesty, I wish I never sold it, it was much sharper than the canon lens, and faster in terms of aperture.

Also had a 70-300mm f/4-5.6, auto focus was slow and loud, this lens really shined in its "macro mode". It was an okay lens, just as good as its cheap canon counter part, and IMO the Macro mode would make it a better buy. Nothing like shooting 1:2 macro shots at 300mm, those butterflies never see you

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by LSRC Railfan

NO SIGMA!!! I wouldn't recommend ANY Sigma lens to ANYBODY. I have the 17-70. I'm extremely unhappy! The TERRIBLE autofocus has ruined many, many shots.

The 17-70 has been highly regarded by a number of people in this forum in the past, including myself.

I was very happy with it, very sharp in particular. It became sensible at one point to sell it and my 35 f/2 and get the 17-55 IS, but I certainly did not do that because I was in any way unhappy with the 17-70.

[J Douglas Moore]

Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman

Buy a Nikon

-- Kevin

What's a Nikon?

[khalucha]

So I am gathering that the 17-40 is the way to go for a cheap "L" series that takes a lot better pictures than the rest of the crowd in the same focal range?

I am thinking of selling my 3 lenses and buying this one for the time being until I can get the $$$ for a 70-200 L IS also.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Originally Posted by khalucha

So I am gathering that the 17-40 is the way to go for a cheap "L" series that takes a lot better pictures than the rest of the crowd in the same focal range?

I am thinking of selling my 3 lenses and buying this one for the time being until I can get the $$$ for a 70-200 L IS also.

I got on the L bandwagon with 17-40 f4 L. Glad I did. I saw the difference right away.

I got rid of my so-so 18-55. Keeping my 24-105 f3.5-5.6. Since I'm still shooting film, I'll keep it for my A2.

I too am going to get a 70-200 f4 L IS a soon as I can.

[TAMR159]

Lenses made by the same manufacturer that made your camera will, almost 100% of the time, trump any "equivalent" third party lenses in terms of image quality, performance, etc., etc. I've owned regular Canon glass, Sigma glass, Tamron glass, and Canon L glass - there's absolutely no competition, the L glass blows the rest of them away. Course, what do you expect? It's professional-grade lenses made by the same people who make the camera body itself, so...

I know it's tempting to get the Sigma or Tamron lenses that have the same specs as the manufacturer's own high-end glass at a fraction of the cost, but in all honesty, the manufacturer's glass will beat it almost every time.

I think the biggest thing is how you want your shots to turn out - if your heart is set on great image quality, great color, and razor sharp shots, then go with the high-end manufacturer glass. If you're one of the ones who says it's just a hobby, don't intend to get a lot of shots published, etc., then Sigma glass is just fine.

That being said, I'm currently shooting with a 17-40 F/4L, 24-70 F/2.8L, and 70-200 F/4L (all Canon, obviously) with a Canon 40D, and the image quality is jaw-dropping. Always razor sharp, great color rendition and good contrast (with cheaper lenses, it always looked like there was a "thin, hazy gray layer" over the shots - combined with dull colors and soft focus, they really weren't very appealing). The performance is another one - autofocus on these L lenses is rarely (virtually never) off, and it's lightning fast...plus they've got tough, metal bodies (they're built to last - many pro photographers are still using their L lenses they purchased 15 years ago, and aside from needing recalibration every so often, they produce just as nice of shots as they day they were new).

[khalucha]

Does anyone prefer the 24-105L over the 17-40L?

[ottergoose]

Originally Posted by khalucha

Does anyone prefer the 24-105L over the 17-40L?

I don't think you can get a good answer to that question without considering what other lenses you've got. The various 24-105's are pretty popular walk around lenses, because they're solid and have a really versatile range. On the other hand, 24mm might not be wide enough for you, especially if you've got a crop sensor. I've shot a lot of scenes at 17 mm that just wouldn't have worked if I couldn't get that wide.

At the moment I've got the Sigma 17-70 and Canon 70-200 f/4 L; the next lens I'm looking to purchase (in the distant future) is the 17-40 L, because I'd like my wide landscape shots to be a bit sharper. Of course, if I was going to continue my emulation of Ween, I'd be looking at the 70-200 f/4 L IS, but I'm not a master masher like he is

[trainboysd40]

I prefer the 24-105 for 2 reasons:
1: Zoom range. Fits perfectly onto my 5D for almost every occcasion.
2: IS! Handholding at 1/3 second, booyeah!

[Walter S]

Originally Posted by trainboysd40

I prefer the 24-105 for 2 reasons:
1: Zoom range. Fits perfectly onto my 5D for almost every occcasion.
2: IS! Handholding at 1/3 second, booyeah!

I agree with this and will agree even more when I get the 5D II. 95% of the photos I have uploaded have been taken with the 24-105L.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by trainboysd40

I prefer the 24-105 for 2 reasons:
1: Zoom range. Fits perfectly onto my 5D for almost every occcasion.
2: IS! Handholding at 1/3 second, booyeah!

Originally Posted by Walter S

I agree with this and will agree even more when I get the 5D II. 95% of the photos I have uploaded have been taken with the 24-105L.

You guys might be talking me into buying this. I sure could have used that range today.

[khalucha]

I like the 17mm aspect with my 40D but after really thinking about it I do not shoot that wide that often so it is no big deal if I do not have it but I have wanted more distance (zoom) and thought the 105 portion would be a better deal. I currently have the Tamy 17-50 and like it a lot but want to cross over and get and "L".

Just the decision of which one, the 17-40 of the 24-105. I am starting to lean towards the 105 now.

I know that this might start a pissing match, and not intending to, but is one a sharper lens compared to the other. I have heard that the 17-40 has to be one of the sharpest "L" lenses out there. Does anyone know if there is any fact to that from personal experience?

[TAMR159]

24-70 F/2.8L

[Watain]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

I guess it is time to move onto the next subject. What about Ford or Chevy? Which one is better?

Chevy doesn't have the Mustang....

[MichaelJ]

I'm getting the 24/105 tomorrow for AUD $1450 (USD $910/EUR €740/GBP £680). Absolutely fantastic price, shame I couldn't do Duty Free as well.

[Wizzo]

Originally Posted by MichaelJ

I'm getting the 24/105 tomorrow for AUD $1450 (USD $910/EUR €740/GBP £680). Absolutely fantastic price, shame I couldn't do Duty Free as well.

You're going to be amazed at the image quality Just make sure you test it thoroughly as soon as you get it home and ensure that its not a dud.

[MichaelJ]

Will do, Steve. I'll test it out on some trains on Wednesday afternoon.

[milwman]

Originally Posted by khalucha

Does anyone prefer the 24-105L over the 17-40L?

I have the 24-105 =sharp!! IS helps to. I don't have the 17-40 but a SP 17-35 Tamron F2.8 4 that is Sharp but mostly to wide for me.

[jnohallman]

Originally Posted by Watain

Chevy doesn't have the Mustang....

And Ford doesn't have the Corvette . . .

Jon

[TAMR159]

Originally Posted by jnohallman

And Ford doesn't have the Corvette . . .

Jon

Or the Camaro...

[khalucha]

Originally Posted by MichaelJ

I'm getting the 24/105 tomorrow for AUD $1450 (USD $910/EUR €740/GBP £680). Absolutely fantastic price, shame I couldn't do Duty Free as well.

Let me know what you think. right now I am up in the air between the two. they both have Pros & Cons.

Kevin

[Watain]

Originally Posted by jnohallman

And Ford doesn't have the Corvette . . .

Jon

And Nikon does not have L lenses.

Around here only the older generation drives Corvettes, then again I think Im the only young person that drives the 05-09 version of the Mustang around here.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

The EBT's Saltillo PA depot and my beloved Deep Canyon Red '89 Mustang 5.0 GT back in October '95.

Sadly, both are no more.

[Joey Bowman]

Originally Posted by Watain

And Nikon does not have L lenses.

Around here only the older generation drives Corvettes, then again I think Im the only young person that drives the 05-09 version of the Mustang around here.

Same thing in my area regarding corvettes, most of the owners are in their 40s or older, with a few younger people having one.

My brother had one for a while back in his early 20's. Pretty nice car, he had a C5 FRC that had some engine work done. Bad thing is that the car must have been cursed, before owning the corvette he had had maybe one or two minor accidents. He had several with the corvette, one time the parking break would not hold at his apartment and it rolled down the hill into other apartments, another time he rear ended some one (his fault). He ended up selling it and the guy that bought it totaled it within a few days.

A few of his friends also had corvettes, and before something about rich parents gets brought up, unlike the few young kids that do have corvettes, they all worked their ass off for years to afford those cars. They all have had other sports cars as well including TT Supras, RX-7s and other slower japanese sports cars.