wide angle for 5DMkII

[dood]

I have the sigma 12-24 and canon 24-70 which cover the wide angle range on my 5DII. However, I find that I need to swop these lenses around quite frequently. The 17-40 would fill the gap but don't know if I can justify the outlay when I already have the range covered. One thing that may tip the balance is IQ. Does anyone have experience with both the 12-24 and 17-40? I'm interested to know if the 17-40 is significantly better in IQ.

[JM Tran]

hey mate, I currently have the 12-24 with the 5D2, and used to own a 17-40 too

PROS of the Sigma 12-24

-stopped down to f11 and beyond it is slightly sharper corner to corner than the 17-40 L
-more rectilinear, esp from 14mm on, no barrel distortion, whereas the 17-40 L suffers greatly
-colours tend to be more saturated, albeit a little warmer in colour tone, great for landscapes I guess

PROS of the Canon 17-40 L

-sharper in the centre wide open to f11 etc
-weather sealed, although the Sigma is quite a rugged build it is not weather sealed and you can see the exposed circuitry etc
-easier for filters to be mounted

Overall I chose the Sigma because it is a lot wider, more rectilinear and I dont get distortions when shooting landscapes or interiors. The ability to use it for creative purposes due to it being the widest lens you can go on full frame was the selling point for me. But I preferred the Canon colours and build quality.

[Gollum]

There is always the “Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM”.

[Bear Dale]

There is always the “Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM”.

Love mine on my 5DMKII.

[bushbikie]

^ +1

[dood]

Thanks for responses. Don't want to spend OTT so I think the 16-35 is out for now. Quite encouraging comments about the 12-24, which will be used mainly for landscapes, so I'll probably stick with it for now.