 |
Page: 1 · 2
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
bohonk445
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 18, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
solid feel and build. comes w/ hood. fast aperatures for price paid.
|
|
Cons:
|
cannot attach lens cover when thin wide-angle filters are attached. When hood is on or reversed, the lens cover is hard to attach.
|
|
|
I have not had this lens very long. The pros/cons listed are my initial early assessments. From what I can tell the lens is very sharp for the price and the build seems very solid. I am really ticked about not being able to attach the lens cover to thin wide-angle filters.
Once I try out this lens some more I will update this review.
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2005
|
|
Photo_lc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
fairly fast focus. Good center sharpness. Small in size.
|
|
Cons:
|
un-uniform corner performace. Distortion worse than Canon or Tamron. Rough focus motions.
|
|
|
I have used this one together with Canon's 17-40 L and Tamron's 17-35mm. The performance of Sigma seems to trail in the group. I may have got an bad example. The left lower corner is noticeably worth than other corner in image quality at wide end. The focus action is rough (not like an HSM supposed to be). Focusing for dark environment is not consistent. Corner distortion is much worse than Canon or Tamron.
However, it does have some good points. It has f/2.8 at wide end, although it is not quite useful. The center sharpness can be as good as or even better than those from Canon and Tamron specially at 35mm end. This is to say that if you mainly shoot single person or groups with very few people, this lens can do a nice job! So, I would say that if you get a used one for $300 or lower price and it does perform normal. Get the lens! This is a newer version lens so it cannot be two old! Or if you care about the uniformity of the pictures, choose either Canon (for good quality and fast action) or Tamron (for good quality only).
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2005
|
|
Ernesto Moreno
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 24, 2004
Location: Mexico
Posts: 297
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast autofocus *(see the negative aspects to understanme), very silent, seems strong and well build, i like heavy lens, 77 mm filter, its crazy the 82 mm that has the old version, and is giving me the color i need, the price is the best part (even purchasing in mexico...), this is the first review i ll post 'bout this one....wait for another in a while...
|
|
Cons:
|
....* the af is not exact like has to be, in mi opinion makes his work good enough in 35, not when is in 17, but, sigma let me that little problem since i own thje old 17-35, so, is not a hug terrific aspect at all, i dont like the size of the hood, but this is just vanity.....thats it for the moment.....
|
|
|
... i need this lens for my diary work, (since i own the 1rst version, the 17-35 ex aspherical that is broke by this days and gives me grat photos), Now i feel this new big faty lens is much better, and more nice, the af its fast and silent but i can see is not so exactly like i was waiting for, but at all, ans departing from the price, i did recomend this one, its ideal for the documentalism or photojournalism, also in the pictures on buildings and museums im taking this days is givin me grat shoots in my 1d, ITS A 22 MM, thats the best part of having one, so if you cant afford a canon lens this is a very good option.
see you....
ernesto moreno
zacatecas, mexico
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2004
|
|
canfraggle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 60
|
|
Review Date: Nov 2, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $480.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
HSM, F2.8 at 17mm, good build
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit big and heavy.
|
|
This is a great alternative to the Canon 17-40. It's not too long but it's quite heavy and chunky. The pictures it puts out are pretty reasonable, though I don't have a very critical eye for sharpness. I have a few samples here though:
http://www.markcho.com/gallery/album175
|
|
|
Nov 2, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $480.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, well-built, fast, quiet
|
|
Cons:
|
Very soft (too soft for me), affordable, large aperature
|
|
|
I'm an amatuer who's already spent too much on equipment. I am very happy with my Nikon 50 1.8D and my Sigma 105 2.8 EX, but needed something wide. I looked at the Sigma 15-30, Sigma 14, Nikon 17-35, and then finally this lens (I still want to use it with my N80 - thus no 12-24s).
I'm completely satisfied with the useability of this new Sigma 17-35. It focuses quickly and quietly. The controls are well-designed ergonomically. Focus override is cool, although I haven't used it yet.
I'm equally unsatisfied with the sharpness (or lack thereof) of this lens. I'm not sure if that's because I'm spoiled by my two primes. I'm actually thinking of sending this zoom back to Sigma for calibration. I did recently discover that I can set the sharpening to high in my D100 and get acceptable results, but that causes problems when switching back and forth between lenses (I forget to change the sharpness setting). Exposure and color are very good, the images are simply too sharp. I'm hoping mine is indeed a calibration problem, which is why I'm recommending the lens. Has anybody else had any problems with softness?
J. King
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2004
|
|
Karcsi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 12, 2004
Location: Hungary
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 12, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $480.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
The pictures are nice colored, sharp without torsion and vignetting.
It is a realy very good lens. Even the filter diameter is smaller than itwas on the previous one. The magnification is three time bigger! Noiseless autofocus!
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy.The autofocus is not the sharper some time (if it need only a small adjustment) so you should correct it with manually. (But you can do it in AF mode!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2004
|
|
Karcsi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 12, 2004
Location: Hungary
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 12, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $480.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
The pictures are nice colored, sharp without torsion and vignetting.
It is a realy very good lens. Even the filter diameter is smaller than itwas on the previous one. The magnification is three time bigger! Noiseless autofocus!
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy.The autofocus is not the sharper some time (if it need only a small adjustment) so you should correct it with manually. (But you can do it in AF mode!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
24
|
122461
|
Oct 10, 2010
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
67% of reviewers
|
$428.81
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.38
|
7.00
|
6.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
