 |
|
|
paolonavarrete
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 13, 2016
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Sep 13, 2016
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $82.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp and usable from 20-40mm even at 2.8, looks big but not that heavy for its size because of the plastic used. its not an internal zoom lens but it does not extend much like a super zoom hence it is less prone to sucking in moisture, dust, and dirt
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm is huge. looking for a replacement hood is tough. odd, my copy was sharp if focused at 1m to infinity but focus for something near and it seemed foggy. usual paint flake from this series/generation of sigmas.
|
|
|
|
|
 Sep 13, 2016
|
|
E.Kase
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great range, very wide
|
|
Cons:
|
FLARE, underexposed by 2-3 stops at 40mm on D300
|
|
|
I like this lens alot and find it useful both on DX and FX. It is alot of distortion on film/FX, but on DX it isn't bad at all. Very good low light wide-normal lens on my D300. Decent bokeh and great sharpness. I haven't seen much CA at all either, which is rare with a lens this wide. Its heavy and huge, 82mm front, which causes an unreal amount of flare and veiling. I've learned to be very careful with this thing because, esp inside, the flare can cause the contrast to go down quite a bit. Very good performance wide open though, def. very useful wide open. Very good stopped down, super sharp. It does have an aperture ring for older cameras as well. Mine focus fine and fast enough.
My copy has a strange quirk about it that is very annoying tho. It works fine on all the cameras I've tried it on. Then I started using it on my D300 and noticed that when I shot at 40mm it underexposed the image by a few stops. Everytime. I have no idea what causes this, and it only happens on that camera, but it really is a pain. Works fine on D80,D70, F100, N90s and everything else I've tried it on, just has problems with the D300.
All in all a great, hard to find lens that I'm sure I'll be shooting for awhile.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2012
|
|
pwal1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 22, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Performs well at 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
compatability with canon digital cameras
|
|
|
I recently purchased this lens on ebay as i was after a lens i could use in low light situations at an affordable price.
After reading reviews on here and a few other sites, coupled with the fact that it was a DG lens designed specificaly for digital cameras, i didnt think there would be a compatability issue with my 40D or my 10D.
At first this seemed to be the case but after a few test shots it became apparent that unless shooting at 40mm the camera and lens were not communicating, and although you could dial in a smaller aperture on the camera the lens was staying wide open,resulting in over exposed images.
A few more test shots at 40mm resulted in an err 01 on my 40D and a err 99 on my 10D.
The lens appears to focus and work fine at f2.8 but just doesnt like to be told to close the apperture down in anyway.
I havent seen any other posts on here regarding this issue and infact some have used a 10D with this lens no problem, so i do know if this is an isolated case or if anyone else has had this problem with this particular lens.
I contacted Sigma, but alas as it is now dis-continued they will not offer a repchipping service.
So i guess i shall just have to keep using it at f2.8 perhaps i should have spent the money on canons 50mm f1.8 instead.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2010
|
|
cooterjack
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 18, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp, Fast
|
|
Cons:
|
fairly big
|
|
|
Found this lens on ebay and took a chance.
Fantastic lens, pro quality. very fast and sharp.
great color rendition
if you can find a good deal on one grab it.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2009
|
|
jon_ca
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 7, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
- fast and sharp focusing
- great front and back focusing
- nice contrast and picture quality
- "sweet spot" - just wide enough, and just narrow enough
- excellent build quality... very durable (survived 2 years, and 20 days in Nicaragua)
- some minor distortion at 20mm, but it works nicely for effect
- (Pro & Con) big lens and a bit hefty. Not exactly a walk-around lens because of weight and size... it gets you noticed.
- Real close focusing distance (big dramatic shots!)
- Nice bokeh when close.
|
|
Cons:
|
- (Pro & Con) big lens and a bit hefty. Not exactly a walk-around lens because of weight and size... it gets you noticed.
- annoying lens caps
- a little CA
|
|
|
Definitely an under-rated lens that has some beautiful applications. I find this lens really versatile, and would be on my camera all the time if it weren't for it's size and weight.
- It performs really well indoors where lighting is poor and there isn't much room to move and compose.
- Focusing seems to be very smart. Using spot focusing on my D200, I can blind shoot a scene and somehow the lens & body figures it out correctly.
- Focusing is very quick, quicker than both my 50mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.8 Nikkors. I found myself using the 20-40mm at a Volleyball tournament because of this.
- Get up and personal: you can get some really amazing up-close shots thanks to the incredibly close focusing. I have fooled people with "macro-like" photos from this lens. Up close shots of animals and people is really great... you get a little distortion for effect, but a well proportioned frame overall.
This lens has survived 2 years of usage on 2 different Nikon bodies. It has survived 20 days in the rural and poverty stricken areas of Nicaragua - hopping in and out of pick-up trucks, entertaining grabby kids, and dust. The build is really excellent and I always use it with the accompanying hood and a Hoya 82mm filter.
Overall an excellent lens in all respects. Spending a bit of time with the lens will show you its potential. A real gem and a bargain for the price.
|
|
|
Jul 7, 2008
|
|
Chris Beaumont
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jul 20, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 5055
|
|
Review Date: Oct 1, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Well balanced, good size and weight, fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Massive distortion!
|
|
|
I only rented this lens for a job I've just finished today where I needed a wider angle lens than my 28-105, it's a nicely built lens, very solid, focuses quickly and accurately, image quality is fairly impressive, not a patch on my 70-200L, but a good match for the 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM.
The big drawback though is a HUGE amount of barrel distortion (at least on this copy) at 20mm, and bear in mind I used this on a 1.6x crop camera (30D) so what it's like on a full frame camera I don't even want to think about.
I won't be buying one, I'll be getting a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 instead.
|
|
|
Oct 1, 2007
|
|
gustabod
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 5, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
solid, focuses fast on my 5D, sharp, great color and contrast rendition
|
|
Cons:
|
focusing a bit noisy but not disruptive, large filter but these are minor issues
|
|
|
I don't know why this lens doesn't received better reviews. Sharper than my Canon 24-105 L and just as well built, renders excellent color and contrast, with edge to edge sharpness (close to a prime at 20mm). It is solidly built (you could hammer nails with it). It complements well my Canon lens set up of the above mentioned 24-105 and 70-200 F4 L.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2007
|
|
oliver lam
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 17, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jun 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp at f2.8, excellent build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Slight ca, slight flare, colours not quite as vivid as a canon lens, noisy motor
|
|
|
For $400 you get a supremely well built professional lens which whilst lacking the focusing speed of a usm or the colour pop of an L it provides unrivalled value in terms of cost/performance ratio.
Forget the negative vibes this is a great lens for the money.
|
|
|
Jun 3, 2007
|
|
markle
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jan 16, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 252
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $369.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness at 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
flare
|
|
I agree with the previous comment. The most important feature of this lens is with no doubt the sharpness wide open. I can shoot 2.8 with no fear, all the time.
It gets better stopped down but not that much better. The copy I have do perform at its best wide open. Hard to believe but that's how it is 
This lens didn't get the (deserved) attention but on a FF camera it can be spectacular. The price could've been a little better but it's a 2.8 zoom all the way after all.
The usual "sigma" warm(ish) cast but a good contrast, better than the 16-35 (mark I) but again with the Canon I couldn't really shoot at 2.8 like I do with this sigma.
Direct comparison with the 24-105 at 24mm F/4 puts the canon L on the second place (which is not bad considering that the fight just had two contenders)
The autofocus is not up to the canons, not only because of the speed but also because of the precision. On a 1Ds I see some hesitation (that I don't see with any other lens to be honest): so basically you need to pay attention at the focus before you shoot. Flare is the other thing you need to control.
Sharp enough at the corners but the 16-35 looks a little sharper (but again not at 2.8!)
shots in low light no flash wide open are now possible with this lens. That's what I needed.
higly recommended
|
|
|
May 14, 2007
|
|
gaalpoel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Buildquality, size, very useable wide open.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very sensitive for flares.
|
|
|
Got me this lens about two months ago, seemed to me the best lens instead of an Canon 17-40, and proved right. This lens is a real killer, very useable wide open, and extremely sharp from F4 and up. Size and weight could be a problem to some, to me it seems just fine, has a fine balance with my Digital Rebel with batterygrip.
Only negative aspect I can find is that the lens is very sensitive for flares, you should keep in mind that shooting against the sun is not-done, I'm not sure why this lens creates so much flare. But when you get used to the lens, you should get to know when and how to work with it.
I am really pleased with this lens, and I think this is the one lens that will never leave my bag again.
|
|
|
Aug 1, 2006
|
|
sanguedolce
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 22, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
It is an excellent zoom to reccomend people. I bought it new on ebay, the seller was Cameta Camera N.Y., USA, with 3 years warranty.
|
|
Cons:
|
No one.
|
|
|
I red all the comments written by other people in this web site and it is very strange what someone says about his negative experience he had with this lens. I noted that they do not write any think about the price they paid for and if the lens they bought has been a new or an used sample. To date I am shooting with my Nikon F100 about 10 rolls of slides Velvia 100 and the results are very, very excellent. I took pictures in every light and weather conditions (interiors and exteriors), at long and at short end, at all apertures, with or without flash obtaining always the same excellent photos! I have no barrel distorsion also becuse the short focal give me the opportunity of rotating the body camera and by this way I can reduce at all some residual distorsion. About the weight, it is in the normal range for this kind of zoom and the large diameter of the frontal lens is necessary for its high lightness.
I of course reccomend this lens all Nikon users not only for the price, but over all for the high quality level. I am waiting some additional review by other people or by people that had negative experience with this excellent Sigma 20-40 lens.
|
|
|
Feb 8, 2006
|
|
alainr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 4, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality ; price ; max aperture ; sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy and big ; narrow range ; dual focus system clumsy
|
|
|
I bought this lens together with my first digital SLR (EOS 300D) and took around 500 pictures with it. Image quality was good to very good (sharpness and colors). However it is not HSM and the Sigma dual focus system is really not very user friendly : you have to pull the switch and then the focusing barrell too !
Altogether it is heavy and bulky for the range it offers and the 82mm filters are Expensive !
Reading other reviews I guess I was still lucky to get one that focused properly and was sharp.
I since traded it for a canon 17-40 L usm and am happy I did
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2006
|
|
ray_lam5
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
sounds like there are huge variations of quality with this lens. I find my copy pretty soft wide open but sharpen immensely at around f4 and brilliant at f8. I have developed around 500 pics and most are sharp and bright, only hand shake because of the lens weight and my small 350 which contribute to slightly blurry images in low lighting. Think the lens is definately a keeper but i am finding the range a little limiting. I think the copies are either excellent or extremely poor from these review with no middle ground very strange.
would def exchange or persevere for a good copy as the build quality is excellent.
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2005
|
|
simpo two
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 1, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Struggling to think of any.
|
|
Cons:
|
My example is completely unusable. It is so obviously unusable that I can't really review it; my scores are based ont he one I have.
Lesser cons: do they really need an 82mm thread? The front element looks pretty small in it and 20mm is not awfully wide in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
Agree totally with Bitty.
Testing shows focus is about 20mm short. Got it from Warehouse Express yesterday and it'll be going back for a swap. If the replacement is no better I'll have to get the Nikkor 18-200 VR.
Very disappointed as I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which is excellent. I hope Sigma are not going the same way as Vivitar.
Cheers all!
|
|
|
Dec 1, 2005
|
|
ridewya
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Ok Build
|
|
Cons:
|
Where do I start ??
|
|
|
I have really bad experience with this lens, I think this is the worst lens I have, at 20 mm the picture were all blured no matter what F settings I have all corners are fuzzy, I use it on my nikon D50 my other lens does not cause this problem, anyone else have this probem ??
This lens is worst the the cheapest lens made by nikon or canon
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2005
|
|
ridewya
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $437.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast Focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Blured picture almost in all setting except 40mm
really bad picture quality
|
|
|
I have really bad experience with this lens, I think this is the worst lens I have, at 20 mm the picture were all blured no matter what F settings I have all corners are fuzzy, I use it on my nikon D50 my other lens does not cause this problem, anyone else have this probem ??
The cheapest lens from nikon still perform better than this lens
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
26
|
119241
|
Sep 13, 2016
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
62% of reviewers
|
$365.53
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.45
|
7.25
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
