10D and sigma 17-35 2.8-4.0

[scott stokes]

has anyone ever used this lens with 10D ?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Didn't own but did give it a try...

Kind of junky.. :P

The Sigma 15-30mm had better build quality and seemed to give better images all around.. it has much faster AF..

Still the 17-35mm has a low price.. but if you can swing it.. look to the 15-30,.. or better yet.. the Canon 17-40m f/4 :)

[Guillermo Freige]

There is 2 Sigmas 17-35. The old one and the new DG one. Old ones have no HSM or Micro HSM motor (like Micro USM one), and the new one, recently introduced, seems to be a better one. It has a HSM motor (like Ring USM ones) and I hope to be similar to the Canon 17-40. I´d plans to buy one of the DG ones if image quality is good, but now I think I'll keep only the 12-24. Probably I can buy one if I sell the Sigma 20/1.8 (not very happy with it, not very useful below f/2.8).

[scott stokes]

Thanks for information,glad I did not buy.I have 2 of the cheeper canon lens 28-80,75-300.I need wider angle lens. Is the canon 17-40L that much better than sigma? how is the sigma 50-500mm.should i save for canon 100-400Lmm?

[NGrinerPhoto]

i used one on a d30- that lens is trash

[NGrinerPhoto]

i used one on a d30- that lens is trash

[NGrinerPhoto]

i used one on a d30- that lens is trash

[cc10d]

should i save for canon 100-400Lmm?


It will be a great lense especially if you are looking for a handholdable nature lens. I just love mine. Chuck

[G3]

I have a Sigma 17-35 EX. It is an excellent lens and works well with my 10D.

[Ballen Photo]

I have the HSM model, and have had no complaints about it. It even seems to be fairly sharp. I HAVE heard that for a while Sigmas quality control was spotty. If you find one that interests you and the price is right, try it extensively on your camera, testing all apertures before laying down your cash. 8)
........Bruce

[slejhamer]

I have the older version.

At f/2.8 it's not usable.

At f/4-5.6 it's barely usable.

At f/7.1 it starts to look pretty good. Hmm, make that surprisingly good.

Between f/8 and f/22 it's a gem. Very crisp, low flare. I think it's sharper than my Canon 28-135 IS, which as we've recently learned in another thread is sharper than L glass ... :twisted:

Then again, I only paid US$200 for the Sigma (used) so my opinion is that I got a very good lens for the price. And since I bought it mainly to be used at small aperture (for landscapes) I have no problem with the softness wide open.

[scott stokes]

thanks every one .Iam new to all this.save for 17-40 and 100-400 it is!