Who out there has these, and what is your favorite?

I am looking to get either the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM or
EF-s 10-2 F/3.5-4.5 USM

And when I can afford it....the EF 500mm F4l IS USM

On the Telephot...who of you have one of this type?  What do you use it for?  How often?  I guess the same question on the Wide Angles.   

depending on your current set up, and what you like to shoot would influence your decision on the wide angle. 17mm isnt very wide on a 1.6 crop sensor (if that is what you have), yet i know that the 17-40 is pretty much the best lens you can get covering the wide to "portrait" focal lengths - similar to the kit lens you get.  10mm is another ball game - i think mayda has the 10-20 sigma so check some of her shots as to what the width of it can do.. other than that check out FredMiranda and see what people have to say:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

17-40 is pretty much the best lens you can get covering the wide to "portrait" focal lengths

Glad you're not taking my portrait Rich ;)

As I said in the other recent thread - imho wide angle photography is a specialist field if you want to try your hand at it then go for the wider angle lens. On a crop camera 17-40 is not wide enough to get those shots.  

I have that stock lens, the one I mentioned above...so I wanted something a bit wider for those specialist wide angle shots...  I dont want the wide angle for portraits...I do want a nice portrait lens as well.  I am thinking of a fixed 35mm and a fixed 100mm

I don't know what camera you have but if it is one of the crop cameras eg Canon 20D, 400D or a  Nikon then you will be hard pressed to get a better lens than the Sigma 10-20mm for wide angle landscape shots. 

Don't forget to budget for good filters and a sturdy tripod too.

I have the Canon Rebel XTi which is the same as the 400D in Europe.    So the Sigma lens is better than a Canon Lens? 

In a word yes !

There are reviews out there, a look at the measured MTF figures will show it has more resolving power than the Canon. However that is not the full story, as we all know many factors that need consideration, not just purely virtually meaningless numbers on a graph. The colour , contrast and sharpness imho is better than the Canon 10-22mm. A particular strength is that chromatic abberation and flare on the Sigma are virtually non existant, not so with the Canon lens. To me this is a very important consideration when you will be using it to shoot scenes that will have a very high dynamic range.  

Match it with a set of z pro grads, a good tripod and you have the basic kit for landscape work.

"So the Sigma lens is better than a Canon Lens?" Here we go... ;'P

heheh I dont want to start a debate, its just I have not used a Sigma before. 

I think you need to judge each lens on its own merits regardless of make. There are many fine lenses out there from many makers. It is purely my opinion that at this focal range the Sigma is very good.  
I use the Sigma 10-20mm on a Canon 30D .

Attached Link: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Richard - that's why it was in inverted commas ;) What do you call that "not wide angle and not telephoto range" which sits in the ~30-80mm range anyway?

Oh and if it means anything my next lens on my list is going to be the 10-20 sigma - i hear the extra £100 for the canon version isnt worth it... unless i come across a cheap peleng 8mm... oh the fun you can have with that lens - so i hear :)

maybe I will have to buy both! heheheh

Attached Link: Fisheye

So that's the wide angles ones sorted then :D

I'll have to leave it to others for the telephoto ;)

Hmmm not sure if I would completely agree with Richard on all his points.. I did test one when I bought my 17-40mm F4 Canon. Now, on to image quality. This lens is quite sharp. I tested it against my Canon 17-40mm  this  was considerably sharper at f4  than the 10-20 at f/5.6. to 6.5 However, at f8 to f/11 the difference becomes minimal, and the 10-20 is almost as sharp as the Canon..  The edges are a tad softer at f/8-11, but you have to look really hard to see the difference. Sharpness decreases quickly beyond f/16, and f/32 is terrible!!  The lens vignettes quite strongly at all focal lengths, even some at f/8, but  admittedly this is easily corrected.

Flare resistance is surprisingly good, better than the Canon. Contrast is good, not excellent, and colour is very neutral. I would say they may have a problem with quality control, and to be fair I found a 2nd sample  I tried to be far superior... Needless to say this was both using my 10D on the 5D the Canon is superb and provides a better range.. If you ever intend to upgrade to either the full frame or higher resolutions that may be on offer in the future, you may need to think more.. Build quality is very good if you happen to like the DX finish.. I am sure it  not so good as the Canon, Nor does it have the weather proof sealing...  The lens cap is very annoying and did not fit properly I lost one cap, and the rear cap is also poor quality... However I have to admit, that if funds are at a premium and you need the range and angle this lens can provide on a 1.5 to 1.6 sensor there is nothing better than the Sigma, and it is a good deal better than the EFS Canon version..  

I'm not sure what part you're disagreeing with Danny ? You end by reinforcing my opinion that the Sigma 10-20 is better than the Canon 10-22 the lens we were comparing it to. 

The current version of the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC, the one I have, does not have an aperture of F32.  

I'll consider myself fortunate I have not lost then lens cap yet, the design is exactly the same as an EFS Canon lens though so I guess I would just have to use that one if I did, the two are interchangeable until I could get a replacement. 

Neither lens is marketed as weather proof, the same goes for the Canon cameras that the lens is designed to fit. 

I do agree on a full frame camera that the 17-40 range is better, but then this lens is not designed for, or would fit a full frame camera. I gave the reason for choosing this focal length range in the other thread. A 17-40 range on a crop frame camera is not wide enough to use for what most would consider a wide angle landscape image.

Well I ended up getting the 17-40 and a Tamarac 28-75...the latter for doing some portraits.  I of course will have to skip on the 500mm telephoto for a few years.
 
I will be test driving them this weekend.  Look for a portrait of my daughter, and who knows what else I will come up with on the wide angle.
 
Oh the Tamaron is also a macro, a wide angle macro...most cool..about $300

Thank you all for your input!!!

Congrats on the new lenses - happy shooting - I will look forward to seeing the images :)

Ok Richard I thought you may have included the 17-40mm in your comparison.. Also I   found the sample variations to be something that needs to be taken into consideration, as one was so much better than the other.. But I would certainly agree the the Sigma is wonderful value for money... And for the crop factor nothing to beat it if you get a good one!

Well thanks to the advice here I will be picking up my Sigma 10...20 next week,so there should be some new views in my gallery  soon.