View Full Version : Sigma 17-35 zoom
u02bnpx
22nd of April 2002 (Mon), 13:38
I'm considering buying the Sigma 17-35 zoom from B&H (around $439) to use with my D30 and am wondering if anyone has used this setup and if they've been happy? Should I spring for an extra $100 or so and get the Sigma 15-30 zoom instead? I don't know much about gelatin filters, but I assume you can't do polarizing with them. Correct? Or not?
Obviously, I'm trying to get as much wide angle out of my D30 as I can without selling the ranch.
BobbyC
22nd of April 2002 (Mon), 15:17
I made a post earlier about this lense. I used it for some group shots at a reunion weekend before last and was very disappointed in the quality. The faces were soft and lacked the kind of detail I'm used to and I don't have L lenses.
I hate to say this because I've used it for some landscape and architectual work and was pleased with it. This was before I got the D30, don't know if that is a factor.
I have seen some very nice shots from the 15-30, I would just go to the store and try some test shots first. Don't rely on the LCD, take them home and look closely at them. I've become fairly good at judging from the LCD but it fooled me this time.
As a note I was mounted on a tripod and using the remote shutter button.
Bobby
u02bnpx
22nd of April 2002 (Mon), 17:02
Thanks, Bobby. I too am sorry to learn of your experience with this lens. I was hoping to hear some positive news. Perhaps I should look at the Tokina 17mm prime lens...have you heard anything about it?
As for going to the store for a test...forget it. We have one camera store in Erie where I live and their inventory leaves much to be desired
Floyd
UK_Terry
23rd of April 2002 (Tue), 10:52
I too am waiting on a decent review for a wide angle lense.
have a 35 - 80 at the moment and with the D30 it is eq to a 56 at the widest end.
was thnking about the sigma 15 - 30 but cannot find anyone with a good review yet.
Dale
23rd of April 2002 (Tue), 11:08
u02bnpx wrote:
Thanks, Bobby. I too am sorry to learn of your experience with this lens. I was hoping to hear some positive news. Perhaps I should look at the Tokina 17mm prime lens...have you heard anything about it?
As for going to the store for a test...forget it. We have one camera store in Erie where I live and their inventory leaves much to be desired
Floyd
On my search for a wide angle lens and readings different reviews and looking at sample photos etc. it still left me undecided as I receiced good and bad reports on the same lenses. As you there was no way I could compare at at store. I ended up getting the Sigma 15-30 lens and I don't regret it. It is on my camera most of the time.
Dale
UK_Terry
23rd of April 2002 (Tue), 11:45
Has anyone considered or used the
Canon 20-35 f3.5/4.5
it is in the same price range?
u02bnpx
23rd of April 2002 (Tue), 13:59
Dale, I did not at http://www.photographyreview.com that the Sigma 15-30 got very positive reviews. Since you use it and like it, can you tell me how you use filters with it, especially polalrizers? I know nothing about gelatin filters, I'm ashamed to say.
Floyd
Dale
23rd of April 2002 (Tue), 16:04
u02bnpx wrote:
with it, especially polalrizers? I know nothing about gelatin filters, I'm ashamed to say.
Floyd
I haven't used gelatin filters either so I can't help you there. The lens hood has will accept a 82 mm filter and that is the way some are going. The next time I'm in the big city I'm going to check out some of the bigger camera shops to see how it will work.
Dale
Ken Neb
25th of April 2002 (Thu), 09:17
I puchased my Sigma 17-35mm lens from Delta International last year. I got lucky, the lens is supurb. I am also shooting Canon D30 therefore effectively it is 27-56mm. I am satisfied for its value.
Ken Neb
marekz2000
28th of April 2002 (Sun), 12:26
hi,
after a year of using this lens it broke up... so i don`t recommend it - i think that much better deal is to buy used canon "L" lens
mz
Hartmut
29th of April 2002 (Mon), 03:36
Yeah!
I also have a Sigma 17-35mm. It's tack sharp on the left side but blurry in the right upper corner.
SIGMA sucks!
Regards
Hartmut
TLMelanson
2nd of May 2002 (Thu), 08:29
I too had extremely good luck with the Sigma 17-35. Apparently, there are lens to lens differences, or maybe it's the nature of photographers. One loves it, the next hates it. I sold mine and acquired the 16-35L and If I had it to do over again, would have kept my copy of the Sigma. Not saying it was better than the Canon, just that I certainly noticed no meaningful improvement after making the switch.
BobbyC
2nd of May 2002 (Thu), 13:44
I'm curious, those of you that love yours, have you taken any group shots of people with them? I'm just curious because I was real happy with mine until I did. Landscape and architectual shots I did were very nice.
I'm not trying to debate, I'm just curious.
Thanks,
Bobby
TLMelanson
2nd of May 2002 (Thu), 14:38
BobbyC wrote:
I'm curious, those of you that love yours, have you taken any group shots of people with them? I'm just curious because I was real happy with mine until I did. Landscape and architectual shots I did were very nice.
I'm not trying to debate, I'm just curious.
Thanks,
Bobby
Haven't done that, but just looked very closely at the 11X17 print hanging on my wall for edge to edge sharpness, etc and can find no fault with it.
Obviously your experience is your experience and nobody, certainly not I, can contradict it.
Not only that, but there a quite a few people who have had the lens that report less than stellar performance.
Who am I to argue with that?
Hey, I had the ability to grab the 16-35L and I did. But I am just not willing to say this was the *best* move just because I made the decision. OTOH, based on what you and others have said, I certainly wouldn't go out and buy another Sigma 17-35 to double check. :-)
soumya63
3rd of May 2002 (Fri), 19:21
My Sigma 17-35 sucks. Produces purple fringing and useless for group photograph. I am yet to find any decent sharp ultra wide zoom. The best bet perhaps to invest on 24mm prime of canon. But then it is no zoom!
Wheelie
4th of May 2002 (Sat), 02:19
UK_Terry wrote:
Has anyone considered or used the
Canon 20-35 f3.5/4.5
it is in the same price range?
Terry , I use the Canon 20-35mm f3.5/4.5 and I'm very satisfied with the results .
Samples of shots with this lens :
http://www.canonians.com/mixed.htm
Scroll down to the end of the page .
Hope it will answer your question .
Wheelie
UK_Terry
4th of May 2002 (Sat), 05:37
Excellent photo's and a great review.
the best laid out review and examples i have ever seen.
many Thanks
Aussie Gal
29th of July 2002 (Mon), 07:59
15-30 is the way to go.
17-35 is not much chop.
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.