Sigma 17-35 SAGA

[Spillerphoto]

I bought a Sigma 17-35 when I got my Canon 10D last Month, thinking it would save a few quid. How wrong can you be, The sigma gave me trouble from the first week, soft focus on the right side was the first problem, got the lens replaced. The next seemed to be fine at first untill last week when it refused to focus in at all even on manual, The dealer told me that it might be one of the elements fallen out of place, great help that was!!! I have now solved the problem and done what I should have done in the first place and got a Canon 17-40 which has given me no problems. So the moral of this story is

BUY CHEAP GET CHEAP!!!!!!!!!!

[photography By Evangelos]

So Very true Sigma is of no value and they often lack the canon quality I also had this lens and it is total crap from day one and sold it off. You will be very happy with the canon 17-40 L By the way is it for sale yet?

[Spillerphoto]

yea it is for sale as I got one this week, and so far it is showing what a superb lens it really is compared to the Sigma.

[UK_Terry]

Taken yesterday with 10D & sigma 17 - 35, it was an awful day weather wise, dull and occasional rain

I am very happy with the lens.


Cars

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/aircraft/kemble20033/index.htm


Aircraft

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/aircraft/kemble20032/index.htm

So the moral of this story is

NOT ALL LENSES CAN BE DISMISSED AS RUBBISH

[lziering]

Sigma's 17-35mm is not a bad lens but it is not a great lens. It is not the equal of Canon's "L" lens but it is also half the price. Not everyone can afford $800-1600 for a lens and for those people the Sigma is not a bad choice.

[Spillerphoto]

I am not saying it is a bad lens I was saying the two I had were rubbish

[martcol]

I still think I'm gonna get one. Knowing my luck, I'll get one of those that Spiller sent back.

Martin

[CyberDyneSystems]

martcol wrote:
I still think I'm gonna get one. Knowing my luck, I'll get one of those that Spiller sent back.

Martin


LMAO :D