about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: NDJ-AUS  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add NDJ-AUS to your Buddy List
Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical

17_35f2_8_4EX_1_
Review Date: May 25, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $350.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Light, good for landscapes, and GOOD for seascapes - not bending horizons. It is the best at 17mm - better then Nikon's 17-35mm 2.8 tank...
Cons:
Would not take LEE filter system wide angle adapter ring - which can be sorted...

I am 65 and this is the only plastic I have ever head in my bags - and I love it. I do not understand what some of these guys here are rambling about. SIGMA might not have the greatest quality control but, are we photographers or WHAT? Every lens has its purpose! And photographers by lenses to do certain jobs. Don't they? And, no photographer buys 17-35 zoom to photograph portraits. And, no photographer, even if he/she wanted to have a blurry portrait background desperately needs f2.8 THROUGHOUT to do so!!! And we who know it also know that if this lens was f2.8 we would also have to pay double (at least) money for nothing...

This lens is PLASTIC but it is tough little thing. I bought it at the time when they just came out (I have the original one - not "HSM" "DG", or whatever) and it still works flawlessly - after many years traveling across Canada and last 12 crisscrossing Australia. It is IF lens - and its front doesn't rotate. It is tight and neat, smallish - though it has 82mm front. Which is much better than 77mm (to avoid vignetting) if you want to use (any of) filter holder systems. The LEE has handy wide angle 82mm adapters... After thousands of slides i have no signs of molds or dust in it. Or on it. And photographers take care of their gear anyway. Don't they? Even if lenses are cheep - or just because of it. We do not buy "sturdy" lenses to throw them around either...

It is possible that I was lucky with my sample but, in any case , we do not need any lens SHARPER than this SIGMA to photograph landscapes (usually at f11 or higher). And this PLASTIC is very good at its wide and if you use f11 or f16. Unless we are about to print very large prints we will never notice the difference - if there is one, compare to much more expensive lenses. And today, when films/slides do not matter much, we also have that PHOTOSHOP thing handy for manipulating colors. If it is what some might be missing here. In my slides I did not notice any need for it. And, I do like rather "natural" colors anyway.

For the money we save on lenses like this we can buy another PLASTIC which is good for portraits only (STANDARD 100mm or so lens) - and still upgrade to the latest Photoshop too...

This lens is good for landscapes - and certainly so at those apertures appropriate for the job. If approached, treated and used with respect it can give excellent results. I had (and could just because it is plastic) to slightly grind down "clutches" for mounting the lens hood - to make the lens front good for use of LEE filter system (wide angle adapter ring would not go over it), but otherwise have no problem with its build or optical limitations. All lenses I have ever had have them, no matter how expensive. This one is "limited" to landscapes...

If we have no money to buy 5x more expensive Nikons or Canons - or do not know how to photograph with whatever we can buy, we do not have anyone else to blame but ourselves. Guys like SIGMA are there to help those who know...