Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4.0

[eric_ung]

This lens seems to recieve a lot of merit from various photographic magazines, especially the lack of vignetting, colour shift (the trademark of Sigma IMO), minimal flare and distortion, good contrast and sharpness. Has anybody had any experience with it?

With such a low price, it is really appealing to me if it really is so good.

Ultra/Hyper-sonic motor is now available for Canon, Nikon and even Sigma. For those who has experience on them, what do you think about their performance?

 

<p>

 

Any comment much appreciated. Thanx!!

 

<p>

 

Eric

[andrzej_poniatowski]

I love Sigma EX lenses (also have 28-70/2.8 and 105/2.8 Macro) but

this model is NOT their best "effort". I shot 10 rolls of Reala with

this lens (on my Pentax MZ-3 body) on my recent trip to Israel. The

lens is O.K. but not GREAT as the other two. It performs best in the

20-24mm region with reasonably good sharpness and contrast.

Distortion in the corners is VERY bad but perhaps ALL zooms with this

range have it? I would say that FLARE is the second big problem but

then again, perhaps all the "others" are the same! It is difficult to

judge the len4s performance without comparing it to something else.

Mechanically and electrically I had NO problem with Sigma!

Still, I have NOT fallen in love with this lens and bought instead a

Pentax FA* 24/2 AL(IF) - now THIS is some lens! But that4s another

story.

[andy_gulati2]

I've been debating between the Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 and the Canon 20-35/

3.5-4.5 for some time. I like my various USM lenses, but I also like

the idea of extra width and speed. Any thoughts?

[henry_richardson1]

Sigma is currently advertising and B&H et al are showing that a new

17-35 with HSM is available.

[semanta_coh]

I bought this lense ,new,two weeks ago,shoot with it one roll...and

that's the end:The lense had stuck,cannot focus, auto or

manually,and when looking through the viewfinder it is very dark,as

it shut itself down

to the smallest aperture.I have Eos 5 and 620 and other

lenses,Canon's,and this is new and frustraiting to me.I tought of

buying the Sigma 105 Macro,but now I'm not sure of it.I'd like a

comment for either lense,please.

[klaus_schroiff]

Semanta,

 

<p>

 

I think you experienced a lens that slipped through quality control.

Unfortunately this seems to happen quite frequently at Sigma:

http://www.photozone.de/sigma.htm

Optically Sigma has done some major steps forward in the past years

and the EX line up indicates that they intend to do the same in

regard to build quality. However, you cannot offer such cheap prices

without sacrificing something. The 17mm sound tempting but I think

that the Tokina AT-X or the normal Canon 20-35USM are a better bet

in this context - at least on the long term.

 

<p>

 

my 2c ...

[eric_ung]

Semanta,

 

<p>

 

I finally bought the 17-35mmf2.8L although I am still learning how to

use the ultrawide end properly. Interestingly, I also bought the

Sigma 105 EX two months ago, with more than 10 rolls shooting the

lens is good in terms of quality and handling.

[tony_armstrong]

I've owned this lens for just around 2 years, carried it to Poland,

Prague, Nepal, India and through out the UK. The only problem I had

was when I fell off a hill and landed on it cracking the Shade. It

does tend to "wind" into focus compared to USM lenses, But it never

hunts and deals with difficult lighting situations well thanks to the

2.8 aperture.

 

<p>

 

The lens hood is a bit flimsy, esp near the "skinny bits" Care has to

be taken when taking on and off ... also the danger of cross

threading the bayonet mount is quite real !

 

<p>

 

One other thing to watch is vagnetting with screw in filters, I have

a Circ polorizer on permanantly and any other additions will cause

shading. Also the filter size (77mm from memory) can be costly ...

don't know how that compares to the 20-35.

 

<p>

 

I do enjoy the ability to shoot from the waist in tight situations,

Its endless depth of field capturing some great candids / market

scenes / crowds ... always a buzz to get the slides back and see what

you actually captured, it's quite and indescreet in any situation !!!

 

<p>

 

I always debate the Canon vs independants (still doing so for the 70-

200) but this lens, to me at least, has given Sigma a fighting chance

in the battle.

[bill j.]

I purchased the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 EX HSM for the Canon EOS mount

in July 2000. Several things to note: The filter size is 82 mm (not 72

mm). The HSM is 'micro HSM,' which, like Canon's 'micro-USM' does NOT

allow full time manual focus. The minimum focus for this lens, 0.5

meter, is 8 cm longer than the minimum focus for the Canon 17-35 f/2.8

L.

 

<p>

 

Those three things also compose all of my 'cons' for this lens, which

I've used for about 50 rolls of print film.

 

<p>

 

Pros include: quiet, fast autofocus, good color, handles flare well,

minimal ghosting. (I use the included hood all the time). No

vignetting with a standard Hoya HMC skylight filter, and no reported

vignetting with a standard (not thin) circular polarizer.

 

<p>

 

I've been pleased with it. Peter Burian in Shutterbug reviewed it

favorably in the Nov. 1999 issue. Popular Photography reviewed it

early in 2000 (text referred to it as a 'slightly better than average

lens" but the SQF numbers were good), photodo.com cumulatively rates

it a 3.1 vs. the Canon 17-35 f/2.8 L as a 3.2, but study of the more

detailed test results give the edge to the Sigma at 17mm, the edge to

the Canon at 35mm. The Sigma has less distortion than the Canon L.

[edward_michaels]

Let us also remember that this lens is USD 430.00 from B&H in New York via the web.

 

Canon and Nikon can be 1399.00 USD for the 16-35/2.8 Canon and 1499.00 USD for the 17-35 Nikon,

 

For 970.00 to 1070.00 USD price difference, I will live with the Sigma.

 

I own and love the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM with 1.4x TC at less than half the price of the AFS Nikon.

 

Ed Michaels

[azil_goo]

Bill, as I remember, 17-35 f2.8-4.0 HSM EX is 77mm. And it support full time manual focusing. Your statements made me confused.