Just recieved my Sigma 17-40 1:1.8

[axtstern]

and it is awesome.... literately you open the package and say "Aw.." because Sigma plays the noble/Japanese/understatement card to the max. You take it in your hand and say "Aw" again because the weight is only 2/3 of the predecessor. You mount it on your R7 and it goes "Aw" again because that is the only RF-S lens so far that feels just right on the camera, the diameter allows the lens to feel like engineered for the R7 and not like an EOS M lens tacked with super glue on onto an adapter. The weight distributes harmonic, your hands have space to operate zoom and focus. The next "Aw" comes when you focus, you hear nothing, you fell nothing and because their is no stabilization in the lens and I shot with electronic curtain the buffer fills silently.



Only slight critic so far:

1. the start up one card manual keeps silent about the function and configuration of the AFL buttons (there are 2 of them)

2. This is my third Sigma RF lens and so far all come with a different lens hood mechanism. The 17-40 has the best lens hood in my eyes, my complain is that Sigma seems to be not sure which path to follow:

17-50 1:2.8 standard turn and click but completely overengineered. Slight bump against the hood will not make the hood fly off but let the delicate inner plastic bearing splinter. (Have broken 2 of the hoods already)

10-18 1:2.8 press and turn and maybe click system ( The one lens that wants to be treated different from all others)

17-40 1:1.8 standard turn and click with release button (best solution in my eyes)

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Also got the lens. Really nice

 

[Philnick]

It's a keeper, all right. Still dithering about whether to keep my Sigma RF-S 18-50mm f/2.8.

The 18-50 is a lot smaller and lighter. May have to take some comparison shots in good light to decide if the 18-50 is able to compete for sharpness.

I do have Sigma's RF-S 56mm f/1.4 for more reach, and it's another ultra-sharp lens.

 

[axtstern]

I do have Sigma's RF-S 56mm f/1.4 for more reach, and it's another ultra-sharp lens.

Yep, more reach, many years ago Sigma had a 50-150 2.8 lens, very small, not so heavy but a little to soft for many peoples taste
I dream of having an RF version of this lens. Maybe this time with OS and also 1/3 reduced weight.

 

[Philnick]

Yep, more reach, many years ago Sigma had a 50-150 2.8 lens, very small, not so heavy but a little to soft for many peoples taste
I dream of having an RF version of this lens. Maybe this time with OS and also 1/3 reduced weight.

I was talking about the difference between the 18-50 and the 17-40 when I referred to the 56 for reach.

If you expand my signature block, you'll see that for real reach I have both the Canon RF 85mm f/2 STM IS and the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II with the EF 1.4 Teleconverter III. This gives me, on the R7, what is - in effect - a 448mm f/4 lens, a spec that's hard to duplicate. And that telextender actually barely affects the sharpness of the legendarily sharp EF 200, which I got one of the last new copies of a few years ago.

Go to my photo website (linked in my signature). The shots from the butterfly garden were all taken with the 85mm lens - and are deep crops (typically 1/9th of the frame) enabled by the R7's 32.5 MP sensor, with an angle of view similar to a 400mm lens.

 

[axtstern]

I was talking about the difference between the 18-50 and the 17-40 when I referred to the 56 for reach.

If you expand my signature block, you'll see that for real reach I have both the Canon RF 85mm f/2 STM IS and the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II with the EF 1.4 Teleconverter III. This gives me, on the R7, what is - in effect - a 448mm f/4 lens, a spec that's hard to duplicate. And that telextender actually barely affects the sharpness of the legendarily sharp EF 200, which I got one of the last new copies of a few years ago.

Go to my photo website (linked in my signature). The shots from the butterfly garden were all taken with the 85mm lens - and are deep crops (typically 1/9th of the frame) enabled by the R7's 32.5 MP sensor, with an angle of view similar to a 400mm lens.

Hello Phil,



I’m happy to see that others also like to use the R7 as a vehicle to bring old lenses to a new shine.

Compared to others here on Canon Rumors I run my hobby on a shoestring budget but doing ´so since 30 years also brings up a lot of gear.

I have bought the EF 200 which you refer to about 15 years ago, when I was in my “primes are the optimal way” phase, thought I would like and use it as often as I used the EF 135 (both lenses looking like sisters) but somehow I almost never used it, sold it later to buy the EF 70-200 II

For situations so static that a 200 prime will fit I bought myself an used old EF 200 1.8 which also accepts the tele converter, is heavy like hell but also one of the most fascinating lenses I ever worked with.

I mention this because I heve the same fun as you have with the EF 200 with it’s bigger brother in white.

If you are happy with the EF 200 L and the converter then why not trying to jump one level up.

An old used EF 300 L IS is very cheap, is a bit larger than the EF 200 but only 300 grams more heavy than the EF 200, has (a very old version of) stabilization and an extendable build in sun shade.

With the adapters available to me the following options are available with my R7 300 L combo:

Viltrox or metabone Speedbooster EF to RF:

300mm F2.8

Meike standard adapter EF to RF with control ring:

300x1.6=480mm F4.0

• Standard adapter after Canon 1.4 Converter II
• 300*1,6*1,4= 672mm F5,6 (Here I start to get problems with the EYE AF)