 |
|
|
gokalp
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $560.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
optically excellent. os works great. small size for 2.8 zoom. attractive price.
|
|
Cons:
|
no full time manual focus
|
|
|
I love this lens. It is relatively small and light for a f/2.8 zoom, and optically great. My copy is very sharp wide open across the whole zoom range. The optical stabilization works very nicely, and lets me handhold way beyond the conventional 1/shutter speed rule. In terms of the price it is noticeably cheaper than the Canon counterpart with a similar performance.
I am a big fan of FTMF, and unfortunately this one lacks it. However, the focus has been very accurate on my 60D and I have not needed FTMF so far.
I can wholeheartedly recommend this lens.
|
|
 Oct 30, 2012
|
|
thevorlon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 23, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $599.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent lens - I have not seen the front focusing issues some other reviewers have posted. I looked at both the similar Tamron lens as well as the Canon lens. For the money the Sigma lens is the better choice.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012
|
|
Jonas Ottos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 13, 2012
Location: Iceland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 13, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $590.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great resolution and image quality, fast and accurate AF, OS effective
|
|
Cons:
|
FTM would have been nice - but you don't use it often.
|
|
|
This is an excellent lens. If it had the Canon's 17-55 low light focusing accuracy this would be by far the best lens in this focal range. As it is however one has to choose between superior low light focusing abilities af the Canon vs the superior resolution capabilities and the better close-up focusing abilities of the Sigma. Given the price difference, it's a no brainer in my mind.
Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2012
|
|
sehdata
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 20, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast 2.8 sharp at 4.0
|
|
Cons:
|
Front focus - lens 2 - back focus - lens 3 front focus - poor quality production
|
|
|
I ordered the first copy last year - on my Canon 600D it has terrible front focus - i returned and get a new version just to realize that this copy has back focus - ons again i delivered it back and the store checked wit the cameras - the was indeed convinced that i was foully, i then get the third copy and ons again i had front focus - now i get my money back and ordered a Canon 17-55 IS - WOW what a lens - sorry
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2012
|
|
nolaprof
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 16, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012
|
|
timseley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 26, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $670.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
build, image quality, price, stabilized
|
|
Cons:
|
a bit heavy
|
|
|
For shooting video this is my go to lens. I use it for probably 80% of the stuff that I shoot. The Tamron equivalent is also optically nice but the build quality doesn't feel nearly as sturdy/smooth as the Sigma and as I'm shooting video on Canon bodies the fact that the Tamron is backwards is a big con for me. The Canon is a nice lens too, but considering that the Sigma is so much cheaper there's no reason to go with the Canon over the Sig for me. The Sig is sharp, has good color, and is relatively affordable. Thumbs up.
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2012
|
|
tanglefoot47
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14723
|
|
Review Date: Aug 27, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp very sharp even at 2.8, nice finish, OS
|
|
Cons:
|
Not long enough but knew that when I bought so no big deal
|
|
|
First off I am not a Sigma fan I actually don't care for sig lenses. But this lens is awesome and a lot less money than the 17-55 IS but is very well built seems more solid than the Canon. Love the new finish way to go Sig
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2011
|
|
tom_m
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jun 21, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $669.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VERY sharp lens that is versatile. f/2.8 with image stabilization is great. The FLD glass is new and wonderful leaving the CA low. By far one of the better lenses out there in its class.
|
|
Cons:
|
No full time manual focus. The focus ring is narrow and very sensitive and it turns when auto-focusing and your hand (at least my hand) gets in the way. The zoom seems backwards which isn't a big deal but you turn the wrong way without thinking at first.
|
|
|
Plain and simple this lens is a contender! It's commonly compared to the Tamron 17-50mm and Canon 17-55mm. The other lens it is sometimes compared to is the Canon 17-40mm L. If you're shooting on a full frame sensor then you're only real choice here is the L lens...And it's a great lens. I don't own it but I've shot with it before.
However for those with cropped sensors...I'm telling ya, get this lens. If you're on a tight budget, get the Tamron. However, I'd probably just simply stay away from the Canon 17-55mm because I think it's overpriced. If it was an L series with image stabilization...Well, then maybe. Maybe it'd also cost more.
There are a TON of reviews on this lens, so read here and Google it up. I won't repeat what others have said.
However one thing I did not know when buying this lens.. This lens has the new Sigma finish. It does not have that "crinkle" finish. You know that kinda visually textured/sandy matte dull finish (which was pretty smooth to the touch but not glossy smooth). I actually liked the old finish...But many people did not because it could peel off with a lot of wear and tear. I never had that problem, but it's worth noting because you actually don't read about it much. I know it has nothing to do with image quality, but don't be surprised when you pull this EX lens out of the bag for the first time and it has a smooth plastic finish.
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2011
|
|
henrynvirginia
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 137
|
|
Review Date: Feb 10, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $669.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, fast and accurate AF, very quiet OS system, sharp at all f stops. A great lens $400 less than Canon 17-55. Very satisfied.
|
|
Cons:
|
Only if you didn't know that you cannot MF while on AF. Not a problem for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2011
|
|
thomas bulger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 7, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $669.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, sharp, price and warranty
|
|
Cons:
|
no ftm.
|
|
|
I have owned the 17-40L and the 16-35L, this lens is far superior to both. It is easily as sharp as both L lenses and the focus is fast, quiet and dead on. I recently shot a gathering around a campfire and the lens focused without any issues. When others have viewed the images the first comment is "great colors".
I have not been happy with prior Sigma purchases and really agonized over this purchase. I must say that they have made a believer out of me.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2010
|
|
micos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Follow up to my previous review - lens was overhauled and "re-programed" at Sigma service regarding back focus when used in dark with (Canon) external flash`s assist beam. Although Sigma`s Customer Service is by far the best one I have ever dealt with, along with Pentax many years ago (listen Canon ?) lens came back exactly the same. In the mean time I tested my friend`s lens and it has the same problem. I am suspecting that Sigma did some mistake in the lens software or simply ran on Canon`s AF booby trap :-). After all, it challenges seriously Canon`s EF-S flagship 17-55 2.8 IS at almost half the price.
I spoke with Sigma service technicians and it will go in again - seems they are intrigued with the problem. Anyhow, I would appreciate if any actual Sigma/Canon owner could test this lens and post the comment here.
The procedure would be to put on external flash, take some cereal box or anything square with clear lettering in very dark space and
take a couple of pictures. Flash assist beam will engage and "help" the lens to focus - or to miss, remain to be seen. F stop should be around F 3.5 or 4 enough to allow some DOF but not too much to affect the result. All original Canon lenses passed this test with ease and even Sigma does AF almost perfectly without IR beam - weird, at best!
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2010
|
|
pedropedro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 26, 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 26, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
nice finish
|
|
Cons:
|
optical aberrations at 17mm
|
|
|
I've bought the sigma 17-50 2.8 and I may keep it but not very happy with it, as at the shorter focal lengh distortion at the edges of the image is extreme, very bad. In the center is not very sharp. However in medium and longer focal lengh everything seems acceptable. Also I dislike a noise that the image stabilizator makes with the lens out of the camera and in vertical position, as I shake it sofly sidewards.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2010
|
|
micos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 15, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, very good build quality, right size and price, great warranty
|
|
Cons:
|
Extreme corners not sharp and distorted at any F. stop, AF unreliable in low light, focusing ring rotates and no full time MF.
|
|
|
This lens replaced my long time workhorse, Canon 17-40L whose AF module bite the dust I did not want to ditch 400$ to repair it.
It is quite a different beast, very sharp and with excellent contrast. I do not care much for OS (or IS for Canon users) in this focal range, and to be honest I do not see much of the difference
compared to non-IS 17-40. Steady hands I guess...anyhow, I have chosen this version over old 18-50 2.8 EX because of HSM focus motor and totally new optical construction - and boy is it better! Took over 4.000 field images in the past two months and had some mixed impressions. As long as there is enough light for the camera/lens to focus without flash or camera assist beam this little guy delivers great results, at ANY F stop but in particular from f. 3.5 and up. But, as soon as you bring it into dim interior (most wedding reception halls) it shows its other nature. All of a sudden, despite giving focus confirmation in the viewfinder, AF is all over the place and most often way back from the focus plane.
As soon as there is some extra light or light level in the room goes up for any reason - AF is bang-on again. Just for the reference, this seems to be exactly the same on three camera bodies. I will take it to Sigma for check-up and see if this improves, if not, this alone makes it unworkable for professional use.
Other than that I really like it, very sharp, there is a bit more corner distortion than with 17-40L ( do NOT put people`s faces nowhere near edges of the frame) but than again not quite a fair comparison since 17-40 takes its sweet spot on a cropped sensor. Will post update after Sigma check-up...
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2010
|
|
nicklau81
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 3, 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, very good IQ, OS works like charm
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is not working
|
|
I was put a very high expectation for this lens as I was a bit hard to decide this lens or Tamron 17-50mm, however at the end I put my choice to this lens. I bought it online though.
First impression after out of the box was the build seems to be good, however at rear lens I found there was an open hole for dust to come in 
Now the test, first test at 17mm AF worked like charm, super fast and silent, step up to 24-30mm AF still worked perfect However the nightmare begun from 35mm above, the AF didn't work at all, hunt hunt hunt and hunt *sigh*
OS was really work.
IQ was really superb, sharp from center to border but soft at corner especially wide open.
At the end I decided to sell this lens
|
|
|
Oct 3, 2010
|
|
Robert Kester
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 15, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: Sep 19, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $650.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost, 6-year warranty, past positive experiences with Tamron lenses
|
|
Cons:
|
quality control
|
|
|
I did not give an overall rating or a build quality rating as I believe the copy of the lens I purchased was defective. The images were not sharp at any aperture setting and the auto-focus was both slow and noisy. I was influenced to buy this lens because I own another Tamron lens and couldn't be happier with it. I felt the 17-50 OS deserved a shot as an alternative to the Canon 17-55 IS based on both price and length of warranty but once I tried it out on a 7D I could not talk myself into volunteering to do further QC for Tamron so I returned it and bought the Canon. I still think it was worth a shot and will try Tamron products in the future.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2010
|
|
vhsema
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 45
|
|
Review Date: Sep 18, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $669.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, well-built, good colors, fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing that isn't listed in specs, like no FTM
|
|
|
Excellent lens so far. I'm really enjoying it. Nice and solid. Very sharp wide open at f/2.8, but extremely sharp at f/4.
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
18
|
39148
|
Oct 30, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
78% of reviewers
|
$661.92
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.38
|
8.44
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
