This lens seems to recieve a lot of merit from various photographic magazines, especially the lack of vignetting, colour shift (the trademark of Sigma IMO), minimal flare and distortion, good contrast and sharpness. Has anybody had any experience with it? With such a low price, it is really appealing to me if it really is so good. Ultra/Hyper-sonic motor is now available for Canon, Nikon and even Sigma. For those who has experience on them, what do you think about their performance?

Any comment much appreciated. Thanx!!

Eric

-- Eric (eung@hongkong.com), January 15, 2000

Answers

I love Sigma EX lenses (also have 28-70/2.8 and 105/2.8 Macro) but this model is NOT their best "effort". I shot 10 rolls of Reala with this lens (on my Pentax MZ-3 body) on my recent trip to Israel. The lens is O.K. but not GREAT as the other two. It performs best in the 20-24mm region with reasonably good sharpness and contrast. Distortion in the corners is VERY bad but perhaps ALL zooms with this range have it? I would say that FLARE is the second big problem but then again, perhaps all the "others" are the same! It is difficult to judge the len4s performance without comparing it to something else. Mechanically and electrically I had NO problem with Sigma! Still, I have NOT fallen in love with this lens and bought instead a Pentax FA* 24/2 AL(IF) - now THIS is some lens! But that4s another story.

-- Andrzej Poniatowski (audiomix@algonet.se), January 16, 2000.

I've been debating between the Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 and the Canon 20-35/ 3.5-4.5 for some time. I like my various USM lenses, but I also like the idea of extra width and speed. Any thoughts?

-- Andy Gulati (a_gulati@fandm.edu), January 19, 2000.

Sigma is currently advertising and B&H et al are showing that a new 17-35 with HSM is available.

-- Henry Richardson (henry_richardson@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.

I bought this lense ,new,two weeks ago,shoot with it one roll...and that's the end:The lense had stuck,cannot focus, auto or manually,and when looking through the viewfinder it is very dark,as it shut itself down to the smallest aperture.I have Eos 5 and 620 and other lenses,Canon's,and this is new and frustraiting to me.I tought of buying the Sigma 105 Macro,but now I'm not sure of it.I'd like a comment for either lense,please.

-- Semanta Coh (rafiris@barak-online.net), March 05, 2000.

Semanta,

I think you experienced a lens that slipped through quality control. Unfortunately this seems to happen quite frequently at Sigma: http://www.photozone.de/sigma.htm Optically Sigma has done some major steps forward in the past years and the EX line up indicates that they intend to do the same in regard to build quality. However, you cannot offer such cheap prices without sacrificing something. The 17mm sound tempting but I think that the Tokina AT-X or the normal Canon 20-35USM are a better bet in this context - at least on the long term.

my 2c ...

-- Klaus Schroiff (klaus@photozone.de), March 06, 2000.

Semanta,

I finally bought the 17-35mmf2.8L although I am still learning how to use the ultrawide end properly. Interestingly, I also bought the Sigma 105 EX two months ago, with more than 10 rolls shooting the lens is good in terms of quality and handling.

-- Eric Ung (eung@hongkong.com), March 06, 2000.

I've owned this lens for just around 2 years, carried it to Poland, Prague, Nepal, India and through out the UK. The only problem I had was when I fell off a hill and landed on it cracking the Shade. It does tend to "wind" into focus compared to USM lenses, But it never hunts and deals with difficult lighting situations well thanks to the 2.8 aperture.

The lens hood is a bit flimsy, esp near the "skinny bits" Care has to be taken when taking on and off ... also the danger of cross threading the bayonet mount is quite real !

One other thing to watch is vagnetting with screw in filters, I have a Circ polorizer on permanantly and any other additions will cause shading. Also the filter size (77mm from memory) can be costly ... don't know how that compares to the 20-35.

I do enjoy the ability to shoot from the waist in tight situations, Its endless depth of field capturing some great candids / market scenes / crowds ... always a buzz to get the slides back and see what you actually captured, it's quite and indescreet in any situation !!!

I always debate the Canon vs independants (still doing so for the 70- 200) but this lens, to me at least, has given Sigma a fighting chance in the battle.

-- (tony.armstrong@rmh.nthames.nhs.uk), June 21, 2000.

I purchased the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 EX HSM for the Canon EOS mount in July 2000. Several things to note: The filter size is 82 mm (not 72 mm). The HSM is 'micro HSM,' which, like Canon's 'micro-USM' does NOT allow full time manual focus. The minimum focus for this lens, 0.5 meter, is 8 cm longer than the minimum focus for the Canon 17-35 f/2.8 L.

Those three things also compose all of my 'cons' for this lens, which I've used for about 50 rolls of print film.

Pros include: quiet, fast autofocus, good color, handles flare well, minimal ghosting. (I use the included hood all the time). No vignetting with a standard Hoya HMC skylight filter, and no reported vignetting with a standard (not thin) circular polarizer.

I've been pleased with it. Peter Burian in Shutterbug reviewed it favorably in the Nov. 1999 issue. Popular Photography reviewed it early in 2000 (text referred to it as a 'slightly better than average lens" but the SQF numbers were good), photodo.com cumulatively rates it a 3.1 vs. the Canon 17-35 f/2.8 L as a 3.2, but study of the more detailed test results give the edge to the Sigma at 17mm, the edge to the Canon at 35mm. The Sigma has less distortion than the Canon L.

-- Bill Jameson (bjameson@mail.med.upenn.edu), February 01, 2001.