Sigma Wide-Angle Zooms for Canon D-60?

[shamrock838]

Sigma Wide-Angle Zooms for Canon D-60?:

I’m in the market for one of two Sigma wide-angle zoom lenses for EOS cameras: - 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 (or) 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0. How does Sigma rate here? I’m interested in user comments, general pros and cons and related stuff.

Re - the Sigma 15-30mm: - what is a “rear gelatin filter slot”…and how does this work? I invariably attach a UV protective filter and circular polarizer to my other lenses. What adjustments would be necessary for the 15-30mm? Finally, what is “two-touch zoom/focus”?

Thanks in advance…

M i k e

[Cal Maier]

Hi Mike,

I've tried both of the Sigma lenses that you have mentioned and found that the 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 was the sharper of the two, at least with the ones that I tested.
Now this may cause some owners of the 17-35 model to disagree, but I can only relate my experiences with these two lenses. I'm sure that most of the people that own either lens are generally happy with the choice that they made.

The rear gelatin filter slot on the 15-30 will accept gelatin filters such as those available from Lee Filters, or Roscolux. These are lighting gels that are normally used for theatrical lighting applications. They can be used for color correction of film(not really applicable with digital) or for enhancement of black and white photography. The 15-30 also comes with a screw filter adapter that will allow the use of 82mm screw-in type filters on the front of the lens. This is OK for digital cameras such as the D 60 because of the 1.6X conversion factor, but this slip on adapter will cause major vignetting with a full frame camera.

Two-touch zoom and focus means the zoom ring is separate from the focus ring,

I hope that this helps clear-up some of your questions.

Cal

[shamrock838]

C a l ,

Very helpful post! Thanks again.

M i k e


cal maier wrote:
Hi Mike,

I've tried both of the Sigma lenses that you have mentioned and found that the 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 was the sharper of the two, at least with the ones that I tested.
Now this may cause some owners of the 17-35 model to disagree, but I can only relate my experiences with these two lenses. I'm sure that most of the people that own either lens are generally happy with the choice that they made.

The rear gelatin filter slot on the 15-30 will accept gelatin filters such as those available from Lee Filters, or Roscolux. These are lighting gels that are normally used for theatrical lighting applications. They can be used for color correction of film(not really applicable with digital) or for enhancement of black and white photography. The 15-30 also comes with a screw filter adapter that will allow the use of 82mm screw-in type filters on the front of the lens. This is OK for digital cameras such as the D 60 because of the 1.6X conversion factor, but this slip on adapter will cause major vignetting with a full frame camera.

Two-touch zoom and focus means the zoom ring is separate from the focus ring,

I hope that this helps clear-up some of your questions.

Cal

[henkbos]

Cal,

Can you show some pictures of the Sigma. How do you rate the lens?

Henk

[nhan_88]

Hi, I came accross your Web site and I really like it. You have a lot of wonderful pictures. I noticed you posted o Microsoft Frontpage logo. Is this site completely done with Frontpage? Or any other program? I appreciate if you can let me know. You can reply to this thread or you can e-mail me at ianboy1956@aol.com. Thanks in advance.

[nhan_88]

nhan_88 wrote:
Hi, I came accross your Web site and I really like it. You have a lot of wonderful pictures. I noticed you posted o Microsoft Frontpage logo. Is this site completely done with Frontpage? Or any other program? I appreciate if you can let me know. You can reply to this thread or you can e-mail me at ianboy1956@aol.com. Thanks in advance.

I apologize for posting wrong reply to your thread. I am new user to this forum. Does it explain my mistake? My question is suppose for user HENKBOS. Sorry.

[henkbos]

Thanks for the compliment!
Not totally in Frontpage. Did the first setup and then switched to just uploading pics after making then suitable for the web in Breezebrowser.
Would like to use FP again, but it always compares the files and wants to download (not UPLOAD) all files that are on my site. Have to cancel this for each file. I might do something wrong there (use FP 2000).
Would love to use the EE from Pekka, but so far I can't get it up and running and the support from my ISP isn't great. More or less gave up.

[photography By Evangelos]

Stay away from the Sigma 17-35 HSM it is not at all a good lens. I had the lens for 11months and the A/F moter failed on me. I sent in to sigma and they repaired it. When I got it back It kept jamming up my D60 the camera would lock up. Sent it back in 3 more times. Got it back and the the lens Apature would stick at F2.8 at 17 MM sent it back 2 more times. Got it back and sold it. I got the Canon 17-35 L and it is a much better lens. As a pro in need my gear in my bag not broken. I like saving money but if you use your gear to make a living as I do sigma will fail when you need it most. The Sigma lens failed me at a wedding when I really needed it. None of my canon lenses have ever failed as of yet. I have had one other sigma and it also let me down. So no more Sigma for me please. Good luck if you buy one some have no problems with them.
By the way the sigma 17-35 is not a sharp lens at all.

[timbo]

I had a sigma 15-30 and loved it! I sold it because I already had Sigma 14mm 2.8 I love even more. I don't know about the 17-35 I never owned one.

You won't go wrong with the 15-30!

Good luck

[FreezeFrame]

If there is any way you can possibly avoid aftermarket lenses avoid them. I broke this self imposed rule to save money and bought the Sigma 17-35. I performed this simple test. I put my D30 on a tripod in the kitchen and shot identical photos at 35mm with the Sigma and a Canon 35 to 350mm L lens. No fancy test patterns or anything like that. I just opened the cabinets to give me lots of fine detail.

Printed several shots at 8x10 and was shocked by how soft the Sigma was!

Also, in the first 12 months the AF system had to be repaired.

I now own the Canon 16mm/35mm 2.8 - expensive, yes - worth it? Yes. You get what you pay for.

Good luck, I know not everyone needs to buy such expensive glass but if you shoot for a living there is a reason you rarely see a pro with anything other than the best.

[robertwgross]

FreezeFrame wrote:
If there is any way you can possibly avoid aftermarket lenses avoid them. I broke this self imposed rule to save money and bought the Sigma 17-35. I performed this simple test. I put my D30 on a tripod in the kitchen and shot identical photos at 35mm with the Sigma and a Canon 35 to 350mm L lens. No fancy test patterns or anything like that. I just opened the cabinets to give me lots of fine detail.

Printed several shots at 8x10 and was shocked by how soft the Sigma was!

Also, in the first 12 months the AF system had to be repaired.

I now own the Canon 16mm/35mm 2.8 - expensive, yes - worth it? Yes. You get what you pay for.

Good luck, I know not everyone needs to buy such expensive glass but if you shoot for a living there is a reason you rarely see a pro with anything other than the best.

Now, let me get this straight! You shot one with a 17-35mm zoom lens, and you shot one with a 35-350mm zoom lens, and you got different results. Two radically different lenses, and you got different results. That sounds about right.

---Bob Gross---

[henkbos]

Just bought the 15-30 and so far so good. Will post more pics later this week. Not a very fancy pic and not corrected/sharpened in PS, but again: more will follow.

http://www.henkbos.com/web_pics/trees.jpg