Please commet... Thanks

ivor · 5th May 2003

Can some of the expert in CS comment on the below lens... Thanks

Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX ASPHERICAL HSM

Planning of getting it, budget hyper tight to get the Canon 16-35mm f2.8..

tomshen · 5th May 2003

Forget it.

ivor · 5th May 2003

You mean, stick to Canon...??

Quote:

Originally posted by tomshen
Forget it.

gremlin · 5th May 2003

This lens is considered by some not to be very good. You can do a search on dpreview and clubsnap here to see some comments.

ivor · 5th May 2003

then, any other recommendation... Thanks...

trendmatrix · 5th May 2003

Yah I am also looking for a wide angle lens. Any other recommendations?

5th May 2003

Sigma's 15-30?

Bluestrike · 5th May 2003

Sigma 15-30....
Canon 17-40?

trendmatrix · 5th May 2003

How much are they??

charvy · 5th May 2003

Canon 17-40mm @ $1220 with gst

Bluestrike · 5th May 2003

Sigma 15-30 abt 900++

trendmatrix · 5th May 2003

wah these babes dun come cheap huh...

ivor · 6th May 2003

What is the diff below 17-35 & 15-30...?? Which is better...??

tomshen mentioned, "Forget it" for the 17-35... Does that mean the 15-30 is good...??

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluestrike
Sigma 15-30....
Canon 17-40?

Bluestrike · 6th May 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by ivor
What is the diff below 17-35 & 15-30...?? Which is better...??

tomshen mentioned, "Forget it" for the 17-35... Does that mean the 15-30 is good...??

I'm not sure abt the 17-35. When I was using the 15-30, the cons that I find is that

1. Bulky size
2. 82mm Tread size.
3. noisy AF(not that a problem)

and the pros I find using it

1. good distortion control
2. sharp

NitroTech · 6th May 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by tomshen
Forget it.

why?

tomshen · 6th May 2003

Sigma 17-35/f2.8-4 is not as good as the other two wide angles: 15-30 and 20/f1.8. If you are more into landscape, get 15-30, street then 20/f1.8. I am the owner of 20/f1.8 and very happy indeed. Just pity it's a prime lens and not wide enough on D60. If Sigma ever produce a zoom fast lens like: 17-35/f2.8 with the same optics as 20/f1.8, I will definitely go and get it. The 17-35/f2.8-4 is not that solid as far as I know.

ivor · 6th May 2003

Thanks...

15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF isn't that fast... And the 20/f1.8 become a 32mm on the 10D...

I need a wide lens... all DSLR users have no problem getting telephoto, but not wide... I am beginning to get rather 'pissed' with my 50/f1.8 becoming a 80mm... :'(

Quote:

Originally posted by tomshen
Sigma 17-35/f2.8-4 is not as good as the other two wide angles: 15-30 and 20/f1.8. If you are more into landscape, get 15-30, street then 20/f1.8. I am the owner of 20/f1.8 and very happy indeed. Just pity it's a prime lens and not wide enough on D60. If Sigma ever produce a zoom fast lens like: 17-35/f2.8 with the same optics as 20/f1.8, I will definitely go and get it. The 17-35/f2.8-4 is not that solid as far as I know.

Java_Guru · 6th May 2003

Hey!! That's my lens for sale!!

I bought the 17-35 over the 15-30 becoz it was :

(a) Faster at F2.8
(b) Half the Size and Weight of the 15-30. The bigger the lens, the less likely u will use it. This is a very impt pt unless u are built like kingkong.

Got o AP or CP and ask them to show u the 2 lens for comparison.

In terms of quality (MTF charts), thw 17-35 Sigma is nearly equivalent to the Canon 17-35L. Go to photodo to check it out.

ckiang · 6th May 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Java_Guru
Hey!! That's my lens for sale!!

I bought the 17-35 over the 15-30 becoz it was :

(a) Faster at F2.8
(b) Half the Size and Weight of the 15-30. The bigger the lens, the less likely u will use it. This is a very impt pt unless u are built like kingkong.

Got o AP or CP and ask them to show u the 2 lens for comparison.

In terms of quality (MTF charts), thw 17-35 Sigma is nearly equivalent to the Canon 17-35L. Go to photodo to check it out.

Forget MTFs, they are not representative of a len's real-world performance. How many of you shoot test charts in real life?

I personally won't pick 15-30 or 17-35, both have ridiculous 82mm filter threads. And the former is so bulky. For the same reason, I personally don't like the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 either, never mind it's 2.3 stops faster. Either settle for the Canon EF 20mm f/2.8, or the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L.

There's also the EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (relatively cheap) and Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 ATX Pro if you really need f/2.8.

Regards
CK

6th May 2003

Yeah, agree with CK on the MTFs. Don't get too carried away by it.

The Canon 20mm f/2.8 is sharp and distortion is very well controlled.

I notice a lot of DSLR users (myself included) are fretting over the 1.6x focal length multiplication. So they are buying all these wide primes and zooms... Not that cheap and even then, your focal length becomes 26mm or so which IMHO, is still not wide enough if you are a wide angle enthusiast.

Well, I really wish Canon will come up with something less of a 1.6x real soon and affordable. That's why 10D doesn't appeal to me, even though it has other improvements over D60. Then u can really use your other lenses without having to buy an extra ultra wide angle lens.

5th May 2003	#1
ivor Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: SINGAPOUR Posts: 1,905	Please commet... Thanks Can some of the expert in CS comment on the below lens... Thanks Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX ASPHERICAL HSM Planning of getting it, budget hyper tight to get the Canon 16-35mm f2.8..

5th May 2003	#2
tomshen Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 3,719	Forget it. __________________ Visit http://www.tomshenstudio.com

5th May 2003	#4
gremlin Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 990	This lens is considered by some not to be very good. You can do a search on dpreview and clubsnap here to see some comments. __________________ PixelPixie Wedding Photography \| Blog

6th May 2003	#16
tomshen Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 3,719	Sigma 17-35/f2.8-4 is not as good as the other two wide angles: 15-30 and 20/f1.8. If you are more into landscape, get 15-30, street then 20/f1.8. I am the owner of 20/f1.8 and very happy indeed. Just pity it's a prime lens and not wide enough on D60. If Sigma ever produce a zoom fast lens like: 17-35/f2.8 with the same optics as 20/f1.8, I will definitely go and get it. The 17-35/f2.8-4 is not that solid as far as I know. __________________ Visit http://www.tomshenstudio.com

5th May 2003	#6
trendmatrix Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 142	Yah I am also looking for a wide angle lens. Any other recommendations?

5th May 2003	#8
Bluestrike Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: There lor~ Posts: 4,843	Sigma 15-30.... Canon 17-40?

5th May 2003	#10
charvy Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: SG Posts: 770	Canon 17-40mm @ $1220 with gst

6th May 2003	#18
Java_Guru Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 785	Hey!! That's my lens for sale!! I bought the 17-35 over the 15-30 becoz it was : (a) Faster at F2.8 (b) Half the Size and Weight of the 15-30. The bigger the lens, the less likely u will use it. This is a very impt pt unless u are built like kingkong. Got o AP or CP and ask them to show u the 2 lens for comparison. In terms of quality (MTF charts), thw 17-35 Sigma is nearly equivalent to the Canon 17-35L. Go to photodo to check it out.

6th May 2003	#20
UStime Guests Posts: n/a	Yeah, agree with CK on the MTFs. Don't get too carried away by it. The Canon 20mm f/2.8 is sharp and distortion is very well controlled. I notice a lot of DSLR users (myself included) are fretting over the 1.6x focal length multiplication. So they are buying all these wide primes and zooms... Not that cheap and even then, your focal length becomes 26mm or so which IMHO, is still not wide enough if you are a wide angle enthusiast. Well, I really wish Canon will come up with something less of a 1.6x real soon and affordable. That's why 10D doesn't appeal to me, even though it has other improvements over D60. Then u can really use your other lenses without having to buy an extra ultra wide angle lens.