|
|
hlmbks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 24, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 968
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Affordable compared to other 2.8 lenses.
|
|
Cons:
|
Mechanical quality.
|
|
I bought my Sigma 17-35 from some company through Amazon. One week after purchasing the lens my AF quit functioning. Sigma would not fix my lense for free because the warranty card I received was not filled out by the dealer! I tried every thing I could to get them to repair it, I even shipped it to them with my Amazon recite, the blank warranty card and a hand written note explaining my situation and problem with the lens. They just shipped it back without touching the lens. After a few months of shooting only with MF my AF decided to work again! But after several more months had gone by the AF began sticking when focusing at the minimal focal range. Soon after that the lens began making a loud "click" sound when zooming in and out right around 25mm and now the lens won't stop down past f/5.6! Due to the poor customer service I experienced and the quality of the lens I received I am sad to say that I will likely never buy a Sigma product again.
Tim
|
|
 Apr 15, 2009
|
|
woffle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Mar 2, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, quiet and wide, built like a tank
|
|
Cons:
|
For the money, not much
|
|
Can be picked up for bargain prices, well built, wide enough on cropped DLSR's and fast enough to be used without a flash indoors. Maybe I lucked out but my copy is tack sharp and I love it.
I'd compare it favorably with the 17-40L - especially at well under half the price.
|
|
|
Mar 2, 2009
|
|
Joseph N. Hall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 31, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 2, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
(Very) inexpensive alternative to Canon 16-35/2.8L. Fairly light. Solid build and good appearance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality varies by copy. Usual iffy Sigma focuser.
|
|
I'm on my second one of these (same model). My first was purchased c. 2005. Image quality was so-so (although acceptable for many purposes, even full frame), but the main problem was that the lens never focused properly. At all! It focused at more or less random distances regardless of the subject or distance to the subject.
The focuser froze in 2006 and I returned the lens to Sigma; it was returned in working order after a free repair. But the original focusing problem continued. Having other lenses in this focal length, I eventually, for the most part, stopped using it.
Last year I sent it to Sigma, complaining specifically about the focusing problem. I received a brand new lens (new in box with accessories). This one focuses perfectly, and the full frame image quality is good to excellent depending on focal length and aperture. I'm perfectly satisfied with it at the moment and really don't think I would get a lot more out of the (HEAVY) 16-35/2.8L.
Pixel peepers will want the L glass but I'm pretty picky myself, and I'm content with this guy for now.
|
|
|
Sep 2, 2008
|
|
Tobers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 27
|
|
Review Date: Apr 20, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Decent fast full-frame wide angle at a fraction of the price of the Canon 16-35. Softness at f/2.8 sorted with focus micro-adjustment. Build quality nice & solid.
|
|
Cons:
|
Resolution is a bit lacking in the corners at 17mm but nothing to be overly fussed about for this price
|
|
I needed to replace my Sigma 10-20 now I have a 1D. The 10-20 vignettes badly especially with some Lee filters on the front. I was after a Canon 16-35 but they are very expensive. This Sigma seemed to fit the bill, with a fast f/2.8 and decently wide 17mm (I'd still like wider though...).
Having read the reviews here the first thing I did when I got it home was a focus test. Indeed it is soft at f/2.8 but nice & sharp at f/8. Being blessed with a 1D mark III, I used the focus micro-adjustment facility and set it to +18 to get a very nice sharp image at f/2.8 at 17mm, with no detremental effects at other apertures & zoom lengths. Result.
So I now have a nice fast wide lens for free funded by the cost of the 10-20 sale. I can use this happily whilst I save up for a 16-35.
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2008
|
|
grovner
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 14, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice Case, looks good, achieves "focus" quickly
|
|
Cons:
|
No significant image quality, VERY soft images
|
|
I bought this lens based on a friend's recommendation and the reviews on Amazon. Didn't see these reviews till after I ordered it. Worked with the lens on my new 40D in many different light situations: early AM, mid day, and evening outdoors. Almost hourly indoors, including the "tripod Dollar Bill test. All I can say is I found the IQ to be marginal. WAY worse than one would expect from a lens from Sigma's EX series.
I would not recommend this lens to anyone.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008
|
|
Aaron Hogsed
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 31, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 12, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
comes with a good soft case
|
|
Cons:
|
soft soft soft.
|
|
I have used several copies and seen results from others and this lens helped me convert to the "L" series.
The images were soft at almost every f stop and color was poor. Bad distortion problems. Most images were barely usable.
I would not reccomend this to anyone but the most casual shooter who has no concerns with image quality.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007
|
|
ltj123
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 31, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $419.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Just a 'very good' lense for my purposes.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bit heavy
|
|
Hey this lense has worked very good for the last weding I shot, some outside landscapes, and lastly for bit of portrait work. I have not seen problems others report, focus vg in low light, built in flash works well (no ghosting), crisp images, colors look to be very actual. I am happy with it, using more then Canon lenses I presently have (which work well also).... But I have only had for couple months or about 600 shots....
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2006
|
|
radiodenver
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 490
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good general purpose wide-angle zoom. Better than average sharpness. Built like a tank.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little on the heavy side. 77mm filters get expensive. Doesn't work well with pop-up flash (lens shading)
|
|
I've been using this lens for over a year. It does a pretty good job in most situations. My biggest complaint is it feels like a boat anchor. Second biggest complaint is that it isn't a good lens for indoor shooting unless you're using a speedlight. It will shadow your images using the pop-up flash. I've got some good results with this lens making landscape shots though. When I head to the mountains, it is always in my bag and will always get used.
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2006
|
|
stelin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Optically it is reasonable -- no more.
|
|
Cons:
|
Reliability -- total lack of.
|
|
Mine has been used for a total of maybe 200 shots, and is on it's 3rd HSM motor. Bearing in mind my 12-24 had it's HSM die after 1 week of ownership, I have some doubts about them.
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2005
|
|
Mr.Koko
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, quite fast, no CA, no vignetting
|
|
Cons:
|
AF weak in pure light conditions - night shots blurry
|
|
Lens seems to be a good sample. I use it with my 350D and it acts excellents. It's a bit hot lens - I mean color temperature.
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2005
|
|
captainpixel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Apr 20, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $400.00
|
|
Pros:
|
None really
|
|
Cons:
|
focus problems with Canon EOS Cameras
|
|
Ok I've had the lens back from Sigma. I did ask for my money back but as their warranty says - they don't warrant that the lens is fit for purpose so if you want a $400 paperweight get this lens!
It came back with an invoice saying that they had replaced the optics - well it's certainly different to what it was but it's actually worse. I won't bore you with images but it still has serious focus problems.
Any company that doesn't warrant it's goods as fit for purpose, in my view, should be given a very wide berth. Save up a bit longer and get a Canon lens - in fact even the £90 18-55 kit lens with the 20D is better than this one
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2005
|
|
captainpixel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Can't think of one!
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus problems with Canon EOS 20D
|
|
First let me say that there may have been a fault with my lens but... there seem to be a lot of faulty ones out there. Basically mine was just about acceptable above f8 as the depth of field at f8 and avove meant that the focus point may just be in focus. At wider apertures the CA and distortion at the edges are far far worse than on the cheap 18-55 kit lens that comes with the camera and the lens thinks it's in focus when it's not.
It's been sent back to Sigma. I'll report back when I hear something
examples at ---www.newforest.com/sigmalens---
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2005
|
|
|
