Please give me some advise about

[opoo]

my friend would sale me used Sigma 17-35mm for 350$
or i rather get the new 15-30 one which is over 500$

any idea?? or suggesstion .... comparision .. price? ..please

Thank....

[y6y6y6]

I have the Sigma 17-35mm and I'm very happy with it. I think I paid $430 new. I haven't used the 15-30 but I can't imagine the extra 2 mm in angle would be worth $150. And for a wide angle lens I think the Sigma 17-35mm is more than sharp enough.

Here's a shot taken with theSigma 17-35mm:
http://www.jonsullivan.com/BigPicture.php?imgid=1923

-----------------
Jon Sullivan
http://www.jonsullivan.com/

[oops]

I went on vacation this week to the "Big City" (one that actually HAS a camera shop:) ) with the expressed intent of buying a "L" lens and checking out the dozens of things you just can't appreciate on the internet.

I searched everywhere, all major shops, and it was Nikon, Nikon, Nikon and film, film, film. The largest camera shop in the state who advertised "Canon" in big yellow page ads didn't have a single "L" lens.

However, they did have a sixty five y/o Pro who was so sold on digital that he convinced me that the Sigma 17-35 EX was the very best lens ever produced and would perform better than any "L" on my D30.

My first clue should have been that he wasn't too familiar with the D30 but he owns a Nikon D100 which is a superb camera.

So, not knowing squat about the Sima 17-35 EX and not armed with an internet connection, I bought the Sigma 17-35 at a "L" price.

This is a horrible lens. I took a shot of a lady at 50 feet, tripod mount, 35mm, 1/250, f4.0 and SHE HAS NO FACE! There was absolutely no detail in her face at all. Just a blank blob. I then took many more shots that ranged from useless blurry to just fair if I stay at 4x6 max image size.

To those of you who love this lens with the D30, you really lucked out. This lens has a horrible predictability rating on the D30. To those like me who live in the sticks, don't go to the Big City with a corn cob in your back pocket and hay seed in your hair. I should have known better; I'm much smarter now. 8) It's Charmin Quilted or nothing from now on.

[brunzie]

The Sigma 17-35 has a very respectable 3.1 Photodo rating and in the Ebay forum on rating lenses, it was given a 4.35 out of 5.....excellent for a lens that can be purchased for $350 on Ebay. Canon lenses are better but at 3 to 4x the price, this is certainly a bargain lens.

[SteveCliff]

I've got the Sigma 15-30mm, and so far I am *very* impressed. Very sharp and a pleasure to use.

Of course, I only started taking SLR pictures from about a week ago after upgrading from my Powershot S40, so I probably don't know what I'm looking at .... yet! :)

[David Lawson]

The 15-30 is better put together, the 17-35 felt "Flimsey" I had no problems with optical quality on either. Have neither now as I found them too wide for my type of photography. With my Phd in hindsight I would get a fixed 17mm, Tokina or Sigma but I not know which is best. David

[Rudi]

Oops wrote:
This is a horrible lens. I took a shot of a lady at 50 feet, tripod mount, 35mm, 1/250, f4.0 and SHE HAS NO FACE! There was absolutely no detail in her face at all. Just a blank blob. I then took many more shots that ranged from useless blurry to just fair if I stay at 4x6 max image size.




Chris,

That certainly does not sound right! :( A lens should not be THAT soft at f/4, I don't care what it's made of! Sounds to me like you have a bum lens... I'd return it pronto!

If you don't want to re-invest your money with Sigma, have a look at the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5. I have one, and am very impressed with the image quality, especially considering the price!

Put it this way, I can see faces in photos taken with this lens... :D

[oops]

Wanna trade?:)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4043

Rudi, I'm really stumped on this one. I made what I thought were the very best choices from day one all with the help of this forum. D30, 50 f/1.4, 28-135 IS, and 70-200 f/4. This is my first slip-up and it was because I didn't have an internet connection to confirm my buying decision, was 200 miles from home, and had a pro photographer as a salesman who loves digital and would talk your ear off if you could stay that long.
He meant well but just didn't know the D30.

Oh well, I still have options on this but what bugs me is I deserted what I had come to trust the most when I needed it the most. (i.e.) My almost anal quest for information before making a decision and an obsessive faith in what I learn on this forum!

But, hey, if this was the biggest Oops of my lifetime my user name would be Studley H. or some such egotistical trash.8)

I did read on Dp Review that Sigma will install a chip in the lens if it is used with the D30 at no charge and the performance will improve. I'll keep ya posted.

Everyone, thanks for all the responses! Your positive reviews are what has me puzzled the most.:O

Chris

[Rudi]

Oops wrote:
I did read on Dp Review that Sigma will install a chip in the lens if it is used with the D30 at no charge and the performance will improve. I'll keep ya posted.


Chris,

I just saw your comparison in the other thread, and this was my response:

"If the centre is soft, who cares if the edges are sharp? (I'm talking about LENSES here... :D)

From what I've seen so far, that Sigma of yours really, really sucks (sorry)! No other word for it. I cannot see how a chip upgrade by Sigma will improve the optics..."

... UNLESS the autofocus is off! If it's off, I'd still return the lens for a new one, with the option of returning that one if you're still not happy with it.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I'd return that Sigma, if you still have the option. Funnily enough, I have a Sigma 135-400 APO that is nice and sharp, so they CAN make nice optics...

BTW, what L lens were you after when you went to the big city? 16-35 f/2.8 L?

[oops]

Rudi wrote:

BTW, what L lens were you after when you went to the big city? 16-35 f/2.8 L?


Bingo. I would have looked at the Canon 17-35 f/2.8 also since several here think it is an excellent performer also.

Thanks for your vote on the Sigma. I have had many positive responses on the Sigma and thought I was simply expecting too much from a wide angle. But, at 35mm the lens should do as well as any other regardless of it's wide capabilities.

[Rudi]

oops wrote:
Thanks for your vote on the Sigma. I have had many positive responses on the Sigma and thought I was simply expecting too much from a wide angle. But, at 35mm the lens should do as well as any other regardless of it's wide capabilities.

Yup. Sigma CAN make good lenses, but the 17-35 has had complaints about it all over the net. Now, maybe they're just individual lenses, but it wouldn't exactly fill me with confidence. :)

The other thing that worries me is the fact that you say you paid an "L" price. That shouldn't be, either... the Sigma should be MUCH cheaper than the Canon version!