Anyone used or own the sigma 17-35 f/2.8

[timmyquest]

Opinions???[/list]

[Lesmac]

I owned a sigma 17-35 mm F2,8, and although it was sharp and sweet, it just wasn't robust enough for the kind of photography I do (mainly landscapes in the Yorkshire Dales)
I sold it on E-bay and bought a canon 17-40mm F4L, which I'm more than pleased with.
Some samples of both lenses in my galleries:

http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[RikWriter]

I owned a sigma 17-35 mm F2,8, and although it was sharp and sweet, it just wasn't robust enough for the kind of photography I do (mainly landscapes in the Yorkshire Dales)
I sold it on E-bay and bought a canon 17-40mm F4L, which I'm more than pleased with.
Some samples of both lenses in my galleries:

http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

Robust in what way? Did it break?

[Lesmac]

Yes, the collar cracked and the diaphragm seized up.

[slejhamer]

I had one (the non-DG version) that I had bought used. Not at all usable wide open in my opinion. Surprisingly sharp at f/8.

However there was notable edge distortion even on a 1.6x crop camera (my 10D.) In fact, one corner (lower right when held horizontally) always seemed smudged, both before and after it had been cleaned internally by Sigma.

Also, in my opinion the lens produced images that seemed relatively low in contrast and needed more aggressive s-curve adjustment than I normally apply. That's not necessarily bad, but just a characteristic that I didn't much care for. I've heard similar comments from others so I don't think it was just my lens.

Anyway, I would not recommend.

P.S. I sold mine to KEH so buyer beware if you are buying one from their used list!