Sigma 17-35

[Belmondo]

I bought my 10D about a month ago and bought the 28-135 IS at that time. About a week after that, I bought a 75-300 IS. By this time, the credit card was starting to wheeze, and I still didn't have a wide-angle solution in my bag.

After looking at the various possibilities, I decided to do it 'on the cheap,' and bought the Sigma 17-35. Much to my chagrin, it only worked about half the time. The other half, the camera would freeze and do nothing until I switched the lens to manual focus. Then, everything would be fine.

I called Sigma's tech support and was told I should send it in and have it looked at. Instead, I returned it and ordered the 17-40L instead. I should have it in a few days.

My question: Is Sigma a brand to avoid? I've started to sense that they have a probem with consistent quality---when they work, they're fine. This does not appear to be the case with Canon.

I'm looking forward to the new lens and to being more active in the forum.

Thanks for input/opinions.

[ultimateimagery]

I just bought the 24-70mm Sigma and really like it. However, after reading your message, it reminded me that I did have a similar problem with it regardging changing from AF to MF. I have found that I must turn off the camera in order to switch from MF back to AF. I'm not sure if this is the way its supposed to be done, but it is a bit annoying. Give that a try and see how it goes.

[Belmondo]

Thanks for the suggestion. Actually, I tried everything including pullling the battery out of the camera. Absolutely nothing helped. It would just start/stop working as if it had a mind of its own.

It's moot now anyway--the lens is gone and we're waiting for the Caon 17-40 which is in the mail as we speak.

[Littlebike]

I also have a 24-70 2.8 ex lens and I have had absolutely no troubles at all.

I think the Sigma EX series is a very good lens for the price, especially when the next step is up to the Canon stuff and is usually twice the price if not more.

[bluebomberx]

A few threads down from this one, is another about the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM. This is perhaps Sigma's finest telezoom. Their is also a thread over at Rob Galbraith's site (http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB8&Number=151986&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1) about which Sigma lenses work with current EOS digitals.

I also have the Canon EF 17-40 f/4L. It is an awesome lens on digital or film and you won't regret the purchase.

Here are a couple of images taken with the Canon EF 17-40 f/4L at 17mm and a 10D.

http://www.phototalk.net/photos/data/500/510145_4577.jpg

http://www.phototalk.net/photos/data/500/510142_4242.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

Despite the fact that I am a very happy Sigma user,. based on your and others experiences,. I would say it is fair to assume that Sigma's quality control may not be "perfect". This is true of Canon and all manufacturers to an extent,. but I would say it is safe to assume that Canon's record may be "a bit" better.

It is a shame though that your first experience with Sigma was dissapointing. It illustrates why it is so important for a company like Sigma to aspire to better quality control ,.. especially if the intention is to try and compete with the likes of Canon. In many cases,. I assume MOST cases,. all it takes is one bad lens to loose a customer for good.

I have been very plesed with my Sigma lenses. I have a range of them starting with the "El Cheapo" 28-300mm "SuperZoom" up to the 50-500mm EX.

All of which have performed perfectly out of the box,. and as I say often the 70-200mm is my best lens.

Good luck with the 17-40,. I too have that lens (it seems to have become a "must have" for us 10D users :D :D )

I'm sorry that 17-35mm has put you off Sigma all together.

[Belmondo]

At this point, I think it's probably more important to fill the hole in my lens supply, and that means I need a good, reliable wide-angle. When I get the 17-40L, I'll be covered from 17-300mm, and that will cover just about every situation I can anticipate, especially at my level of ability (quite low).

Eventually, I'll probably muster up the courage to try another Sigma lens, especially if it's an esoteric need that doesn't justify the expense of a Canon lens.

I look back at my experience with Vivitar Series I FD lenses of several years ago. I thought they were fantastic, and I never had a problem with them that wasn't self-induced. (Dropping them from an overhead compartment on an airliner does tend to void one's warranty.)

[jjguest]

i am also a very happy user of sigma lens
i have 50mm macro ex, 17-35, 24-70, and 70-300 apo.
all are sigma lenses.
here you can see samples:
http://www.pbase.com/jjguest

[Belmondo]

Well, I certainly can't argue with your results. They are very good indeed.

I wish I had a decent camera shop within driving distance so I could look at these things first-hand. The way it is now, it takes a week to get things by mail, and a week to ship them back if they're not right. Chances are, if I had a local dealer and had bought the Sigma lens from him, I could have gotten a quicker resolution to my problems and I'd be a much happier soul right now.

[jduncan]

i bought the sigma 17-35 and really dont like it at all. i notice a problem that at 17mm it will not focus any further away the 1.5metres (on the body markings scale)

Even with its large depth of field a lot of your subjects are going to be soft if they are too far away from the camera.

to get round this i manually focussed according to the markings on the camera and the results are ok but the lens is still sitting in my bag doing nothing until i replace it with the canon version.

i also have the sigma 24-70 2.8 ex but this i have found to be reliable and good quality.

james

[jjguest]

sure! 17-35 is not the best lens of all my sigma lens, and it is this one i will replace by canon when i will get money

[Ken Fong]

Likewise...I use Sigmas until I can afford the Canons. In the meantime, I put up with the inconveniences. Overall, I found Sigmas to be noisier, slower, and sometimes hesitant in terms of autofocus, but in terms of picture quality, it meets my needs.

[emilbev]

Hi, I have a Sigma 17-35 and am somewhat happy with the results. It isn't as sharp as a Canon but is is about $600 cheaper. After spending $2100 for my D60 I couldnot get the extra for the canon lens. I found that using the unsharp filter in Photoshop makes these photos worth showing. I will send some samples when I get a chance.
Emil

[Belmondo]

The 17-40L has arrived, and I've been thrilled with the results so far. I am less inclined than before to issue a blanket condemnation of Sigma lenses having spoken to many people who swear by them. I apparently had the misfortune of getting a bad one. It will be a while before I buy any more lenses of any manufacture, but I certainly won't rule Sigma out.

[minkynuts]

I have just dumped my 17-35. It went wrong 4 times within 6 months of me buying it from new. I know of 3 other press photographers who live within a 20 mile radius of me that have had problems with this lens. It seems that this is the "dog" of the EX range

Robert

[Gary Gibson]

17-35...............hmmmmmmmm. How many of you have used/tried the the Sigma 15-30? With my D30 and this lens the quality is amazing. I guess you all don't need a lens this wide, but for the buck(s) it can't be beat.
It definately suits my interior/exterior work. Great for landscapes as well.

Food for thought, why not get as wide as possible and have the long end ?
Gary

[UK_Terry]

I have just returned from a holiday in Poland, i took over 200 shots with the 10D/Sigma 17 - 35

no errors or problems, i must have a good one!!

[spot]

I also had problem with sigma 17-35/f2.8-4.
With D30 lens work fine and focus is ok.
But then Canon 10D body lens focus is just 17mm about 1-2 meter front.
Zoom in 35mm error is not too much, maybe about 5-40 cm depending the aperture (f).
Once lens is sigma service in finland and they change 2 chip inside the lens but same focus problem stay the way it was.
Now I change That lens to Canon 17-40 and focus is ok.
I don't anymore buy Sigma to Canon (digi) body.

Hannu K.
photo@kalliot.net

[CyberDyneSystems]

minkynuts wrote:
I have just dumped my 17-35. ... It seems that this is the "dog" of the EX range

Robert

You know its odd,. I swear that the 17-35mm was NOT an EX lens less than a year ago? The 15-30 was introduced as an "EX", but the 17-35 was NOT if my memory serves me correctly.

Did Sigma just decide to add it to the EX range,. or did they actually re-engineer it before slapping the "EX" tag on it?

[msvirick]

In medicine the drug sales rep, try to brain wash you that generics drug are really not that good.
If you are happy with Sigma or Tameron, stick with them.
Some of all this is a Rolex effect

[CyberDyneSystems]

msvirick wrote:
In medicine the drug sales rep, try to brain wash you that generics drug are really not that good.
If you are happy with Sigma or Tameron, stick with them.
Some of all this is a Rolex effect

http://burns.thefinaldimension.org/otn/laughing/laugh2.gif

Too funny,..


//I love my Sigmas!