|
|
dbehrens
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 319
|
|
Review Date: Aug 11, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide. Sharper than my Canon 17-35L - especially in the corners.
|
|
Cons:
|
Difficult to use with filters. Flares horribly - even in the slightest direct light.
|
|
The positive of this lens is that it is sharp. I would say almost as sharp as the 16-35 Mk II. However, its Achilles heel is that it is intolerant of direct light. Even the slightest direct light creates purple flares. Having said that - I still have the lens and will keep it until I find something that's on par with the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. I currently use this with the 1Ds Mk2, 5D and 1D Mk4.
|
|
 Aug 11, 2010
|
|
Marc de Wit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2010
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 24, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
A LOT
|
|
Cons:
|
ONLY A FEW
|
|
Performs perfectly on my 1Dmk2n.
Sharp , fast , great colours.
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2010
|
|
KIT1971
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 11, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like brick, very solid, sharp, did I mention it was sharp?
|
|
Cons:
|
Built like a brick, poor auto focus, badly implemented AF/MF switching, CA, high barrel distortion at 15mm.
|
|
I just got this today used from ebay, what a real gem of a lens. I think I paid about the right price, maybe a bit high but the quality of it more than makes up for it. Its really sharp on my 50 and 5d, have yet to see how it performs on my EOS 3. I mainly do architecture so the barrel distortion at 15mm is a bit of a let down but I have only shot at 20 and 24mm before so might not use the ultra wide on my full frame cameras. The distortion is easily fixed in PT lens and is not bad at the longer end. I have tried to coax some flare out of it as some reviews say this is a problem but I really only got some in very bright sun, I will see how it goes.
Quite poor focus systems on this lens but then I usually use MF on a tripod and live view when on my 50d.
It is built like a tank, no movement whatsoever and has a metal hood. MF ring has nice movement no scratching at all. I was looking at the 12-24 but when this came up I went for it, no regrets so far, even if it has only been a day! I have heard that the 12-24 is not as good as this one. I have got three Sigma lenses, 10-20mm, 17-70mm and now this one. I must say I have had no problems at all with them, the 17-70 is excellent. I did have to send a Canon 70-200 f4 L back because of decentering, bad luck I suppose, most of my lenses have been just fine straight out of the box.
I will post an update when I have had chance to evaluate its performance with some hard use.
If you have a chance to buy this lens, I recommend you do straight away.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2010
|
|
dealaddict
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 11, 2009
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $266.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, very wide and work on FF
|
|
Cons:
|
if I am picky that is can't use a filter, don't have HSM
|
|
this lens is a hidden gem in my opinion. I am trying to find a wide angle on my 5D just for fun, so, I don't want to invest too much. I found this lens used on eBay selling less than USD $300. Since I want to get this lens for landscape where I will likely shoot at F11/F16, it is less prone to AF issue, so, decided to take the risk and get it from eBay without testing. To my surprise, it is a very good lens. It focus accurately, and image is sharp even at 15mm in the center. I think for less than $300, this is a steal. Even I don't use it that much, I don't mind to keep it around.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010
|
|
400TMY
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 31, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 105
|
|
Review Date: Jun 9, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $570.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, price and good range. Build quality is nice for what it is. Spectacular with film, and even with 1.6 crop it is useful.
|
|
Cons:
|
flare from the slightest thing, "dual focus" is strange, unnecessary huge. No front filters!, protruding front element, noisy af
|
|
I bought this seven years ago with my eos 3 and with 20d and 5d it is so useful. My longest lasting lens and looks brand new. The build quality is great for what it is, and I am still not tempted to buy any newer uw zooms.
The lens is sharp and colors don't disappoint. I mostly use stopped to 7.1 and the distortion control and sharpness is consistent through the focal range. I can barely notice some CA but just barely. Flare is pretty nuts on a good day, and shooting this indoors with lights on is not fun. I am fairly satisfied with this lens even today and am not crazy about the canon 17-40L compared with this. I have yet to compare the 16-35L.
Focus ring is well damped, zoom is smooth, no creep, nothing rattles when shaken.
Nice integrated hood that is tough (bumped many times no paint scrapes or marks)
The dual-focus seems strange, to go from af to manual you have to push the giant focus run forward in addition to the af/mf switch, and vice versa. Basically with the zoom ring on the AF position, it does nothing- it turns undamped and free floats.
This is what happens if you run it in each config:
AF Switch / Focus Ring / Effect
AF / AF / Autofocus fast, floating focus ring (you can hold it and rotate it and it does nothing) < right way to AF
AF / MF / Autofocus, slower like struggling, focus ring rotates < don't leave it like this because this lens isn't FTM
MF / MF / Manual focus < right way to MF
MF / AF / Manual focus, floating ring (basically turns focus "off" at the present focus position) < this could be useful to keep focus at a manual set distance and then hold the lens by the big focus ring and it wont mf and when you press shutter it wont af either.
|
|
|
Jun 9, 2009
|
|
emaphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 6, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Focal length range, build, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Filtering (only on FF or 1.5 crop). lens flair
|
|
I owned this lens for my Maxxum 7D (1.5 crop) and now have it for my Sigma SD14. On the Maxxum it was super sharp, sharper than the Minolta 17-35 f/2.8. My only quarrel with it was when I used a circular polarizing filter it vignetted a very noticeable amount. With the SD14 (1.7 crop) no vignetting is recorded.
On my sd14 the focal range is great. The lens performs well at all focal lengths. The lenses sharpest f-stop on mine seems to be f/5.6 to f/8 @ 30mm. At 15mm f/11 is best. I usually manual focus the lens to the hyperfocal when shooting landscapes at 15mm, this seems to produce the best sharpness.
Lens flair is controlled, but watch the sun! At certain angles to the sun it's very prone to flair even with the lens hood adapter on.
CA is well controlled too.
Too bad it's discontinued. This lens IMO is optically better than Sigmas 10-22 or 17-50.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008
|
|
Fusion08
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Sep 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent new cost and even better used. Sharp, well built and can be used on FF and Film cameras.
|
|
Cons:
|
No filter thread and hood adapter unusable on FF. A little soft wide open.
|
|
I have 2 of these fantastic lenses, one for Nikon crop camera I use and one foe FF Canon 1Ds. The both are super sharp and don't far behind Canon and Nikon zoom lenses. If your on a tight budget or just like great value for your $$ then I would recommend this lens. I see very little differance in quality, if I don't pixel peep.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2008
|
|
LUHAMER
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 2, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Jul 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid built, good quality, picture is sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
No real filter thread.
|
|
Want to have a wide angle lens, the original Canon is too pricey. And the 12-24mm is not compatible with full frame, although I only got a APC digital, but plan to upgrade in the future, also I like to use film cameras as well. So this is the perfect choice for me. And the picture comes out sharp. only one thing to critizise - no real thread for filter. Of course, you can adapt the lens hood which can mount a 72mm filter. However, when I use it will my EOS-3, I still got vignet while I use it with hood. In spite this, I still give a ten to this lens for the money I paid and the outcome I get.
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2008
|
|
John Falkensti
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Stray light drives it wild, front element needs to be protected at all times. ITS BIG!!
|
|
Going to my local Camera shop, I was desperately looking for a replacement of the 18-135mm kit lens which came with my Nikon D80. The plastic mount on this lens can build up a static charge and acts as a dirt magnet, requiring constant attention and wiping. Inside the shop, its display case filled with older manual focus lenses, sat the Sigma 15-30mm. A brief bargaining session and it was mine. It was put to work immediately, generating some nice shots which you can see here http://www.flickr.com/photos/18171509@N00/sets/72157602309201023/
For the price (around $300) I not complaining. The lens works great, but its extremely sensitive to stray light and the often powerful brilliant blue of Arizona Skies are NOT its strong points. As you use this lens you have to keep the sun at your back or shoulder. Otherwise it just won't work right. Bad lens for beginners, it takes some skill before it does the job. I like it, one of my favorite lenses now and I could care less that its a 3rd party manufacturer.
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2007
|
|
Scott Clark
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 21, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 1098
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, decent build quality, cheap. Crazy wide on FF.
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far.
|
|
For the money, this is a pretty decent lens. It's big (roughly the same as my 28-70L), but very light. Build quality seems pretty decent for the money. AF motor is a little loud, but the sound isn't as annoying as a Canon non-USM motor. I don't actually mind it at all. Focus is fast enough...I'm not shooting a basketball game with it. IQ seems decent, although I haven't had a chance to really run it yet. For the money, I think it's a bargain. No, it's not an L lens but you're not paying for one either :0. The only gripe I have so far is the goofy hood/cap/ring deal...I couldn't care less if the hood is built in (I always use one anyway), but having it vignet with "adapter ring thing" on is a little annoying. Oh well...that's what you get at 15mm on a full frame camera I guess. And did I mention that 15mm is insanely wide on FF? Distortion seems like it's about what I would expect on a rectilinear lens this wide.
If you're looking for an ultra wide, this is a good choice for the money.
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2007
|
|
Ansel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 12, 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 52
|
|
Review Date: Oct 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well made. A joy.
|
|
Cons:
|
People tend to underestimate how good it is.
|
|
The Sigma 15-30 is a fine lens and it is so much more fun than the EF-S17-55. I'm happy to own both of course but really I often take the Canon because it's reported to be such a crack lens. When in reality the
Sigma takes much more interesting photos.
Street shots or Moonlight landscapes, portraits... can all be straight or playfully distorted with the Sigma when required or if you just need to frame everything you can.
The Canon has the quickness but it's 2 weak points are it only goes down to 17mm and night shots with moon ghost terribly.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2007
|
|
thelund
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 25, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $310.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good wide-angle even on a 1,6x crop camera. Exceptional on film! Sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very sensitive to flares, looses contrast to the extreme when sun is in the picture or bordering! No filters. Dual focus.
|
|
I bought this lens used of a 5D photographer who however wasn't too happy about it's performance after upgrading to fullframe, so he invested in a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L instead.
However I am very happy with the sharpness of this lens on my EOS 350D, and I like the zoom-range of the lens, especially on my EOS 33 (film camera).
I usually stop it down a bit, but even at f/5.6 it does it's job very well.
BUT, the lens is VERY sensitive to incomming light, eg. the sun in the picture or just outside it! Contrast drops dramatically if this happens and renders the pictures unusable, so you have to be very carefull when shooting against the sun.
The lens hood is build into the lens and not detachable, so you can not use filters straight away. However the lens cover has a filter thread built in, so with the metal ring part of the filter cover you can mount a filter, but it will darken the cornes at anything less than about 20-24mm focal length! Filters will darken the corners at any focal length on fullframe!
So when using filters i usually use my Sigma 20mm f/1.8 instead, that lens also handles flares a lot better!
The 15-30 is pretty heavy and large too, and as usual it has the Sigma dual focus system, annoying to change to from AF/MF!
Short version: Be very carefull with shots againt the sun, filters rarely useable and not recommended.
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2007
|
|
|
