Email me at midwesternmeso (AT) hotmail [DOT] com

Please note: All images and videos on this blog are copyrighted by myself and may not be used without written permission. Any persons or entities who do not seek written permission will be held liable for copyright infringement(s) and will be subject to monetary compensation not to exceed $150,000 USD. (In pursuant to 17 USC Section 504(b) and (c), 17 USC Section 505.)

Monday, February 12, 2007

Canon 17-40 f/4L vs. Sigma 17-70 2.8/4.5

I just thought I would post a comment I received today, for those who care to know about the comparison.

"Hello there,

after purchasing the 17-40 L (my first L class lens) I ran some test (newspaper test and real life test) at various aperture (5.4, 7.1, 9.0) and focal length (17mm, 28mm, 40mm) between the 17-40 L and the 18-55 EF-S from the Rebel XT kit.

I was very disappointed by the 17-40. At 17mm the center sharpness was the same as the kit lens on the edges and the corners....the kit was better.

At 28mm and 40mm the 17-40 has an edge....except in the corner where the kit lens is as good or better.

The color is obviously better with the 17-40 and the contrast as well. However I found the 17-40 to have too much contrast to my taste. Contrast can be easily added in post is hard to remove without adding noise.

I was interested in this lens because it has the full frame compatibility. However after seeing the sharpness at the borders and corners on the APS-C format I clearly don't think it will be good in the corners of a FF sensor!!!!

So for a $700 lens I have to say that I was expecting better. I ended up like you...returning it to the store and taking the Sigma 17-70.

I ran the same tests...the sigma shows more consistency across the frame. The 17mm is the weak spot like the 17-40, however the sharpness from 22mm is better than the kit lens. All that for half the price of the 17-40. Only one remark, the color are a bit warm with the 17-70 where they were accurate with the 17-40.

Chromatic aberrations are virtually the same on the 17-40 and 17-70...way better than the kit lens.

I still consider the "L" class lenses from Canon. Beside the construction quality of the 17-40, I don't see why Canon put that lens in that class. Optical Quality is not there.



I agree with the quality. These lenses weren't made for anything other than a full frame, and not a 1.6 crop! The 17-40 was nothing but a paper weight to me, and I got two NICE lenses for the same price as the 17-40. I guess if someone is happy with theirs, then that's all that really matters. Thanks for the info Laurent.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

KC Fire

Some pics from the fire today. It felt great getting near it, actually resembled a tornado from one view, with some nice structure.

Contact Me

Contact me @
midwesternmeso AT hotmail (DOT) COM

wibiya widget