 |
|
|
Coach-Z
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 97
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $125.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft... REALLY soft
|
|
|
I bought this lens to replace my Canon 18-55mm IS lens thinking it would be a Sigma equivalent to the Canon 16-35mm lens..
I bought it used without actually doing any background search for the lens...
This is the softest lens I've ever owned, by far...
|
|
 Jul 13, 2010
|
|
RudydG
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 99
|
|
Review Date: Nov 16, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
hsm, price, range on FF, lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft!! Vignetting
|
|
|
Just had this lens to test it out. It could get it real cheap. Well, i don't want it, even for free!! It is incredible soft until f:8, vignetting on 5d is huge.
Maybe it is better on 1.6 crop, and for a low price it is maybe then acceptable?
I also used the 15-30 ex dg, and that lens is really 10x better!
I heard the 17-35 2.8-4.0 ex hsm DG version is better, but i would not buy without proper testing!
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2007
|
|
Bjorn Beheydt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Complete lack of sharpness, CA
|
|
|
I bought this lens the afternoon before I had an important evening shoot (I know, a stupid thing to do). I actually wanted to buy Canon's 17-40 f4L, but that one was not in stock. This was the only available alternative for my Eos 5D, so I decided to give it a try.
I used it plenty during the evening, having taken approximately 200 photo's with it, some with available light (at f2.8), but most of them with flash (f4 and f8).
The results where tearjerking, and I am not joking. I thanked the Lord for giving me the presence of mind to also take pictures with my 50mm f1.8 and my 70-200 f2.8 IS.
They day after, I decided to take the lens out for some serious testing. I used it all focal lengths, and all apertures up to f11 (I decided I don't have to test it at f22, as I will seldom use it), with and without flash. The results still was terrible. In total I shot about 300 pictures with it, and if 5 of them are sharp enough to show to a customer, I would be glad.
My advice: test this thing thoroughly before you buy it!
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2007
|
|
marty01_uk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 15, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Aug 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
It was cheap(119 gbp) quite well built (not as good as l glass) and it also works on full frame cameras....
|
|
Cons:
|
Its soft at f2.8 but i shoot mainly weddings and the odd alnscape when i go walking, so its no big deal to me
|
|
|
I read the reviews here and thought it was sigmas usual quality control problems .....
My lens seems fine quiet motor fast acurate focusing (eos 3)
and it feels sturdy....
I got it for a pitance with the new dg version out so i thought i'd give it a try.....
Like everyone else i've found it's very soft at f 2.8 but i only need the large apature for my wedding work soft the softness helps there anyway...f5.6 and above and its very sharp a lovely lense...
I've stopped taking my l glass walking with me now as the wide angles shots are virtually indistinguishable from the sigma.....
I must admit though i seem to lose some contrast when used with my eos 5d but i might invest in the dg version considering the results achieved off this one...
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006
|
|
jamesdodd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 15, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, well built, wide FOV, wide aperture, light
|
|
Cons:
|
a liitle soft, slow auto focus (faster than non-USM tho...), 82mm thread
|
|
This was pretty much the first lens I purchased. Its the non DG version and I beleive that at some point it has been rechipped (I got it second hand).
Its cheap price, wide nature and wide aperture was the main reason why I went for it.
I occasionaly use it for portraiture, and the bokeh it produces is great.
Autofocus could be better, just hunts a little in low light, but its nothing to write home about 
It is a little soft when wide open but I shoot in RAW and this doesn't bother me and I no longer notice.
There is some slight vignetting when used on a full frame camera (1ds, 5d and film).
The 82mm filter thread is a tad annoying, but I use cokin so it doesn't matter much. I picked up a UV filter on the net cheap for £5...
you can see a selection of my shots taken with this lens here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesdodd/tags/sigma1735mmf284/
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006
|
|
soren
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Oct 31, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Great range for digital cameras with crop factors.... That is it.
|
|
Cons:
|
Breaks easily, not sharp, noisy auto focus.
|
|
|
This is the only complete DUD lens I have ever purchased. I actually sent it back and got another and there was no improvement. I used it verry little hoping I could figure out some sort of sweet spot, but I never managed to, maybe because it broke and was repaired, and then broke again... I am a Sigma fan, and I am lucky I didn't get soured on them from using this lens.
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005
|
|
rojo-uk
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 28, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 154
|
|
Review Date: Jun 3, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, Nice Finish, Fair Price (270 GBP). Comes with Petal Hood and Case as Standard.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor Focusing, on my sample. Soft images, at all Apertures.
|
|
|
I’ve just returned my 17-35mm f2.8 EX of 10 days for a full refund, why? Like most of the reviewer’s have stated, “it’s just too soft”. The version I had wouldn’t focus all that good either, only on the best of days, weather wise, would it produce half decent results, even then, I expected better. Perhaps this was just a poor sample
I was offered the 17-35mm f2.8 DG version be way of a replacement. The focusing was way better and the images were much sharper, but in the end I went for the Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG instead.
My only advice to anyone thinking of buying this lens is to try-before-you-buy.
If your store won’t allow you too, take your digital storage card and shoot several images, in store, using all the lenses you have short listed. Go back home, study the results and only then go back and make your purchase.
|
|
|
Jun 3, 2005
|
|
microsaft
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 22, 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $620.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Just want a heads up. There is a DG version of this lens out now, but that one isn't listed here... so what you read could be either... ???
|
|
Cons:
|
see above
|
|
|
add a topic for the DG forum aswell and we can start to compare apples and oranges...
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2005
|
|
doctorit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 138
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
great build quality at this price range
|
|
Cons:
|
too soft
|
|
|
I jumped at the chance to have an f/2.8 lens at 17mm, but it's just too soft at wide apertures. I did some back to back comparison at 28mm with my Canon 28-135 IS lens, and the non-L Canon lens was sharper. Not too happy about that.
I have had good luck with all Sigma lenses, except this one. Maybe this copy just isn't that sharp, but from what I've read, maybe not. Right now, I think I'll save some $ and switch to the Canon 17-40L f/4.
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2005
|
|
imager1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 24, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 284
|
|
Review Date: Oct 13, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost, lightweight, decent build quaility, fast 2.8 aperature (at 17mm),
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom ring turns the opposite of Canon's (not a big deal), AF can be jumpy in low light situations
|
|
|
A fair number of users on this forum gave thumbs down to this lens with the exception of the poster before me. I spotted this lens in a local shop and the store manager indicated if I didn't like it, I could return it within seven days. Fair enough.
Personally, I think it's a good lens. I have not experienced some of the problems other posters have indicated. I have seen very little if any evidence of softness at any F-stop. Images right out of the camera, even those shot without a strobe and in the shade have good contrast.
It has a lightweight build and although it's not built as well as a Canon L series, it costs half and performs reasonable well. Overall, I am pleased with it.
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2004
|
|
masterfrodo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 27, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 526
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
I have used this lens for the past year and have been very impressed. I use the lens with a Fuji S2 so I use the central section but have had enlargements made up to 20"x14" and am very happy with the results.
I use the lens mostly for press work and have had no problems with sharpness at any aperture. Maybe I have a good lens as most people on here don't give it a good review.
|
|
Cons:
|
None. Given the price, there is nothing out there to touch it. OK, you could spend a lot more and get a Nikkor lens and get a 'little' more crispness but in my line of work I doubt I would notice it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2004
|
|
craiu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 1, 2003
Location: Romania
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Apr 18, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, rather solid and has the f2.8@17mm
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft, poor contrast, bad colours, severe vignetting and lots of purple fringing
|
|
|
This is a peculiar case of zoom - it performs OK (but not terrific) on film but is bad in almost every aspect when used on a digital body. Not sure if this is due to the light hitting the image sensor at low angle or because of some other reasons, the truth is that 17-35 doesn't go well with the Canon 10D, D30, D60 not to mention the elders, 1D or 1Ds.
The filter size is 82mm, which is rather unusual and the front element is rather "bulby" making the usage of filters (such as a polarizer or gradual ND) an adventurous business.
Wide open the lens exhibits severe vignetting which doesn't seem to go even at f8 or f11. Soft all over at f2.8, it gets better after 5.6 but no matter the aperture the corners will stay soft up to f16.
Eventually I ended up selling this and buying the 17-40/4L, which is a jewel from every point of view. If you're thinking of buying it to go with a digital body, I'd suggest to save up for a 17-40/4L or get one of the dedicated Nikon DG wide angles.
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2004
|
|
MarcL
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 4, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 177
|
|
Review Date: Sep 19, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
cost
|
|
Cons:
|
slow and unpredictable AF, noisy, somewhat soft, slight underexposure
|
|
|
I bought this lens with my D30. I didn't really use it all that much except at F8 and above because of it tends to be a little soft when opened wide. A couple of months ago, the aperature diaphragm quick working all together, which I understand is a fairly common problem w/Sigmas. I'll have it repaired, but then it's going on Ebay. I bought the Canon 17-40 F4L to replace it.
If it weren't for the aperature diaphragm problem after so little use, I'd say this lens is a pretty decent bargain overall, but now I wonder.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2003
|
|
FredericB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 248
|
|
Review Date: Aug 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost,
Focal Range,
Sharpness when stopped down(at least 2 to 3 stops)
|
|
Cons:
|
very soft at 17mm and / or if not stopped down,
HSM noisy and threatening to die after 4 years of use (not intense)
|
|
|
I would recommend it but under some restrictions:
*use it w/ manual focus and a table of hyperfocal distenses for as mentionned above, AF is unprecise and unpredictable (pre-focus on the same spot 3 times and you'll get 3 different distances) and does not seem to last too long.
*not fit for reporting for it takes at least 2 to 3 stops down to express its potential for sharpness - if you use it for landscape at F:11 or 16 it is a great lens.
It seems that digital brings the worst out of it when it is really decent on film at f:5.6 or up.
|
|
|
Aug 1, 2003
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Jul 14, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Focal range. Construction seemed nice.
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality. Total absence of sharpness. Heavy chromatic aberation.
|
|
|
I had bought this lens with my Canon 10D and a Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX DF. During the first week, I was wondering why about half of my pictures were lacking sharpness. I'm not talking about focus which was perfect. I'm talking about sharpness.
After I found out that the bad images were always coming from the 17-35, I decided to test both lenses. I took the same shot with both lenses at every single focal lenght marking and aperture combination. The 17-35 was unsharp all over the place. Not a single focal lenght-aperture combination produced decent results.
When I saw the results, I checked for reviews and found photozone.com where the 17-35 is rated pretty low. I found other reviews and comments that stated that this is probably Sigma's worst lens.
I wrapped it up and returned it.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2003
|
|
steviem
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 16, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Quality of pics, the handling of the lens and I always wanted a ultra wide zoom lens at a near affordable price.
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm UV/Skylight filters are very expensive - £50 - to protect front element.
|
|
|
I am not a pro photographer and don't do 'big' enlargements of print film pics I take, so the quality on slide film for a pro may not be 'good enough', but if you want a 'cheap' ultra-wide angle zoom lens and won't be using it in a 'pro' bash it to bits inside a week-type of thing then this could be the lense for you.
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
22
|
141651
|
Jul 13, 2010
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
50% of reviewers
|
$405.67
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
6.44
|
7.00
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
