 |
|
|
EagleAg06
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Feb 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp and focuses fairly fast. Constant 2.8 aperature and a great walk around lens for a 1.6 crop sensor.
|
|
Cons:
|
Loud autofocus if that matters for you.
|
|
|
This lens was the first lens I owned and I am very happy with this purchase. I have gotten great pictures from this lens and have had few if any problems with it. This lens is in the perfect range for most of my shooting. I hope to get a wider lens one day but this seems to do great.
The 67mm filters are cheap and the front element does not rotate making it easy to use circular polarizong filters. The hood is sturdy and works well.
I am very happy with this purchase and would rather have this lens than the 17-40 f4L because of the lower aperature. The 17-40 has slightly better color contrast but not enough to warrant the cost.
|
|
 Feb 28, 2006
|
|
chrisan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Feb 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $620.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build, nice balance on 350D.
|
|
Cons:
|
Little slow, not that sharp pictures, HUNTS a lot!, CA.
|
|
|
I had high expectations for this lens, but i can't say it's been as great as I thought it would be. The lens hunts a lot, it's just horrible. Picture quality is okay, but I had expected a bit better in comparison with the sigma 18-50mm "kit lens". The lens doesn't take that sharp pictures. And there is a good piece of CA on the img.
But it's not that bad, it's okay, really. And i really like the close focusing distance...
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2006
|
|
inukshuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 27, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 61
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Love it. Great pictures and light.
|
|
Cons:
|
NONE
|
|
|
I just bought a D100 and added the 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC and just love it. It's now my main lens. A pleasure to work with and color is great. Just can't think anything negative. There is none.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2006
|
|
utoks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 2, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 83
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, sharp at f4, good range for 1.6x cameras, good build
|
|
Cons:
|
slight focusing problems in dark, f2.8 isnt crystal clear but its definitely useable
|
|
|
I bought this lens to replace the 18-55 kit lens. I wanted something faster for the situations where I can't use a flash. I am really pleased with it for the price. It is a great lens and it's probably one of the most used lenses in my bag (mainly because of the range). The build is really sturdy- makes the kit lens look like a piece of junk. I have run into CA with this lens, but not very often. I was considering the 17-40 f4 but the main thing that made me get this lens is the f2.8 and I'm glad I got it. F2.8 on this lens is very useable... it isn't crystal clear but its not that bad. Once you hit f4 its very sharp.
I would recommend this lens for the photojournalist that needs the 2.8 for situations where a flash isnt allowed. Thats why I bought it and it serves that purpose perfectly.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2006
|
|
laka
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Jan 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, F2.8, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
Not always accurate auto focus in low light, but not a big issue. Not for full frame cameras.
|
|
|
Just got it and made a few tests, and I'm very pleased with it. It is razor sharp and that is my number one priority. A grat walk around lens to a 20D. I think it is a great value lens - highly recommended.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2006
|
|
seowitz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 18, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Jan 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
don't know
|
|
Cons:
|
THIS WILL NOT WORK WITH A 1.3 CROP FACTOR CAMERA LIKE A Canon EOS-1D or a Nikkon D1x/D2x. This lens will give vingetting through the entire zoom range.
|
|
|
This will only work for a 1.6 crop factor DSLR
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2006
|
|
browntimdc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $414.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good value. Decent build quality and feel. Light and compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
Short manual focus ring travel.
|
|
|
For what it is (fast zoom of moderate range) and what it cost, this lens does not disappoint. Sharpness is acceptable at f2.8, very good throughout the frame by f8.
For wide angle landscapes focus is more consistent if you focus at 50mm, then pull back without refocusing. Use AF lock (custom function 4 set to 2 on the 20D). Focus consistency with this Sigma is no worse than my 50mm f1.8 Mk1.
The size and weight of the Sigma balances nicely with the Canon 20D, in my hands.
|
|
|
Jan 7, 2006
|
|
Higany
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Location: Hungary
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Constant F2.8, fast& quiet AF, lightweight, razor sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Little soft @ F2.8, AF not 100% reliable
|
|
I replaced the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm) with this baby. It's far better! Razor sharp at the corners too! The AF is fast & quiet as the AF system of my Canon 70-300 IS USM! However, it's not USM  Unfortunately the AF is less reliable in low light and/or at homogeneous surfaces compared to my another lenses. ---> switch to MF in these situations.
Lens bag & hood included!
The zoom ring is smooth, good "quality feeling".
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2005
|
|
xn03518
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 20, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, F2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
CA, it's not an 18-80EX 2.8 :-)
|
|
|
I recently got this lens and am obviously lucky enough not to have received a bad copy as some users complained ...
The lens works perfectly on my EOS 350D. The pics are clear and sharp even at F2.8! The EX-finish feels good and looks nice.
There are NO focus problems, neither in single-shot nor in AF-servo-mode. Well, there is noticable CA as almost everyone complains about ...
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2005
|
|
scooterzz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Nothing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't find focus with both hands and a hunting dog...
|
|
|
The lens couldn't focus. What else is there to say? Optics and build quality and magic beans can't help ya when every single image is OOF.
Tried it on five (5) camera bodies, and it consistently misfocused (front focused) on every one of them. And none of these bodies had any problems focusing with other lenses.
What did Sigma have to say? "Must be your camera."
Uh-huh. Bye now.
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2005
|
|
kwalsh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2212
|
|
Review Date: Dec 18, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $470.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Good focal range, lightweight, compact, solid build, sharp center
|
|
Cons:
|
Two copies couldn't focus, purple fringe/CA excessive wide, extreme edge/corner softness
|
|
|
Oh how I wanted to keep this lens. The perfect walkaround for my XT. Solidly built, not too big or heavy. Fair price. Includes a useful lens hood. A really nice optic.
The flaws compared to the competition (17-40/4L) are softer edges, some objectionable CA/purple fringe at wide angle (which really doesn't improve at all stopped down) and no full time manual focus or USM (although focus is still adequately fast and quiet). These seemed like very fair trades for the lower cost, smaller size, and less weight of this lens.
Unfortunately I was never able to actually enjoy it because it just refused to AF properly. My first copy couldn't really AF on *anything* at any distance. Though there were some acceptable shots at 50mm. If you tried to use AI Servo it would just never settle and hunt wildly. Obviously broken. Fortunately I had purchased from Amazon which has free exchanges.
My second copy snapped decisively to focus for most things and my hopes were raised. But it failed at infinity and focal lengths 28mm and wider. I started to wonder about my camera, but all my other lenses had no problems. I even borrowed a kit lens so I could try identical focal lengths and aperatures. The kit lens nailed infinity focus every time, but the Sigma would randomly end up anywhere in the range from 30ft to well past infinity. The sigma also missed some closer targets the kit lens had no trouble with (all of these shots tripod mounted of course to ensure identical view and focus point).
Indoor tests at short distances (where it could focus reasonable accurately) showed a nice and sharp at center wide open but unsharp corners that really took until past f8 to clear up. I was also suprised at the amount of purple fringes that showed up just on my white and black focus target - this wasn't a way over exposed sky behind a tree or anything, just a piece of paper. Also the second copy that could almost focus showed a slighly less sharp bottom edge of the image compared to the top.
So, if I had ever gotten one of these to AF properly I would have probably given it a 8 at a minimum, probably a 9. If both top and bottom were equally sharp probably a 9 for sure. Never a 10 because of the purple fringing. After two copies couldn't focus though I have to give it 3 for Sigma's horrible QC.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2005
|
|
jpenn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 31, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 253
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
The size of the lens was great on my 20D.The external build quality was nice too.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft focus below 4.0 , back focused on test pattern
|
|
I was looking for a lens to replace my kit lens that came with the 20D. I really wanted to like this lens, it seemed to have all I wanted in a lens. It was small, light, fast (2.8) and had a nice wide field of view and most people really liked it.
I needed the lens to be sharp at apertures greater then 4.0, but my copy was not. The lens did perform well at 5.6 and above and the images were bright and contrasty. The lens also backed focus quite a bit.
http://i.pbase.com/g3/19/48419/2/53148285.18mm28.jpg
I must have gotten a bad copy, so I sent the lens back to SIGMA4LESS.COM and they are shipping me a 24-70 2.8.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2005
|
|
eds_apple
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp, Well Built, Nice Finish.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy in comparison to 300d kit lens.
|
|
|
I as many on this review purchased this lens to improve upon the standard kit lens. I have only had the lens a little while and have taken approx 100 shots with it and confirm a massive improvement over the kit lens. When I used to use the 300d with the standard kit lens I was always post sharpening using software, this is not needed with the sigma, it is absolutely pin sharp. I also have an EF 50mm prime the f1.8 model and can see no difference in shots taken with the SIGMA and the EF prime!
It appears to me that a great number of people frequently try and compare this sigma to the (F4.0)17-40mm L, this makes no sense to me as the Canon equivalent to this lens is the 16-35 L (given the large aperture of the SIGMA). In addition the sigma has the added range of 50 against 35!
So why try and compare a lens worth approx £300 (SIGMA)with a lens costing more than 3 times as much(CANON)!
Judging by the more scientific reviews done on both these lenses and the numerous direct comparison image samples on the WWW, I cannot see £600 worth of improvement with the CANON, and the SIGMA makes a very, very close 2nd place in terms of quality!
This lens is very well recommended for the EOS 300d and at this quality and in this price range Canon has absolutely nothing to offer for the DIGITAL user..
(and as a parting comment, the reduced size of the lens by virtue of the smaller image circle needed for 1.6x sensors it has the added bonus of more portability and a reduced filter size -i.e. cheaper filters-(a circ pol for a the canon equivalent lens is about £150!!!)
all in all a fantastic lens
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2005
|
|
coolbayu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Nov 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
F2.8, sharp at>24mm, lightweight, good color and contrast, low price
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens flare, CA and sharpness at 18mm corners, 10-20% focus are missed, does not seem to be real 50mm
|
|
|
I bought this lens since I was disappointed with the color and sharpness of kit lens (18-55mm f3.5-5.6 II). Only few outdoor pictures that satisfied me. I did some test of kit vs. 50/1.8, and the difference of clarity was clear.
Then I bought this Sigma lens. I am happy with its contrast and color, as well as the sharpness in its higher focal length. I shot some night pictures in cafe in Jakarta with low light, combination of f2.8 and ISO1600 is great.
Then I went to KL and shot Petronas at night. CA is clear (after zooming in PC) but acceptable. I shot some pictures in Bandung which I am also happy with its clarity and color.
I was disappointed on its flare when I shot pictures with strong background light.
At the price and weight, this lens is great. But after owning this, I purchased Canon EF 70-200 f4L, which its color, sharpness and much less flare put me in different standard. This lens is now my walk around lens, but I plan to replace (or complement) it by EF 24-105 f4L due to "L addiction", and also to be able to put it in my film EOS 100QD. I still think that its color is close to L, but my wife told me that it is still different.
The build quality is excellent, it is close to L. The hood is even better than L.
If you don't have "L addiction", this is a great walkaround lens for 350D.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005
|
|
jamiewexler
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 249
|
|
Review Date: Nov 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp and contrasty, solid build quality, excellent focal length on a APS sensor body.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor low light focus, doesn't play well with Canon flash.
|
|
|
I found the Sigma 18-50 sharp an contrasty at all apertures as long as there was enough light to focus. Once the light got dim enough to use the flash, however, the Sigma had a very difficult time focusing. I was constantly battling out of focus images when I had to use the flash in dark rooms. The final straw for me was when I bought a Canon 550EX flash (I had been using a Sigma EF500 DG Super). The results from the Canon flash and the Sigma lens were horrid. The flash was perfect with all of my other (OEM) lenses. I finally sold the Sigma and purchased a Canon 17-40L. The 17-40 is fantastic.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005
|
|
Kerry Pierce
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3860
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
inexpensive, sharp, good performance
|
|
Cons:
|
minor light falloff in corners from 18-24mm at apertures below about f/4 or so
|
|
|
I've seen people unhappy with the light falloff, but for a 2.8 lens, I can't really imagine having an issue with it. Landscapes aren't usually done at f/2.8. :-) There are few circumstances that I can imagine where this would be an issue if shooting something other than test shots. This is definitely a "best bang for the buck" lens, IMO.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
90
|
298888
|
Apr 29, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
89% of reviewers
|
$438.58
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.58
|
8.67
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
