Sigma 17-35 zoom

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.

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

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

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.

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

Has anyone considered or used the
Canon 20-35 f3.5/4.5
it is in the same price range?

Dale, I did not at http://www.photography​review.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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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!