 |
Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
|
|
Review Date: Oct 2, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, very sharp, good contrast, affordable.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I owned one of these about five years ago. It served me well then. I sold it when I traded up for some more expensive gear. I recently purchased another one used.This is a very nice lens. It's sharp and has great contrast. I don't know what lens the other reviewers were using, but it's obviously not the same as the ones I've owned, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
