Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG Aspherical HSM review by lucasbutchart
6 March 2013
Summary: Wanted to share some love on this lens. It's similar to other newer plastic Sigma zooms: well made, inexpensive, fast focusing, 77mm filters, very versatile zoom range on full frame, full time manual focusing, focus scale, big zoom and focus rings, flare resistant, decently sharp wide open, nice f2.8 aperture for low light, silent HSM, very good minimum focus distance, and probably more.
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG Aspherical HSM review by JimCee
19 February 2013
Summary: I purchased this lens in September 2007 in a Nikon lens mount version from Amazon. I've used the lens extensively with APS-C cameras (Nikon D90 and D7000) and it performs admirably! DxOMark recently tested the lens and compared it with a much more expensive Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM lens (which costs $1,549.00 at Amazon). The Sigma lens performed very well in the comparison and held its own.
Pros: I like this lens, contrasty, color and focus spot on and sharp, sharp,sharp at all apertures. In fact, sharper and better tham my 17-40L GASP...
Cons: Size, a little chunky and limited range, but supurb quality photos, not sure why this is not ranked higher unless I lucked out and got an exceptional copy... Best $240 I ever spent... Make sure you look at the DG version as there are 2 versions of this lens.
Conclusion: I just wanted say after reading the reviews from the past people, they are old reviews and mostly Canon camera mounts, I have used this lenses on my past D100 up thru my D700 and the only reason I selling it now is that I broke down and bought a 14-24 and want to buy the 24-70. The newer Canons focus much better now you should this a try if you get a chance it can be a good bargain in disguise for like was for me.
Pros: Lenses is bright and produces good contrast sharp but for the far corner on full frame. As
Cons: Color is shifted a little from what a Nikon lenses produces, Greens seems more pronounced.
Conclusion: This is a really good lens! I wonder if the bad reviews are from people depending on AF at the wider settings. Af isn't dependable wider than 28. This lens, to my eye, on aps-c beat my 24/2.8 Zuiko at f/8! There is a dead spot on the right hand side, but I attribute that more to my rough handling of the lens. Haven't tested, but Seems comparable to my 21/3.5 Zuiko at that focal length, also. Very solidly built lens.
Pros: Image quality, solid build, relatively fast, great zoom range
Cons: Af doesn't work at wider than 28mm unless you're close, lots of flare,
Conclusion: This lens does not work below 5.6, I've taken loads of pictures with this thing, and it's rubbish wide open, but over 5.6, it's not bad. Focus is slow, the selling point is the f2.8, but anything shot wide open is soft, and not just the edges, the whole image. My advice, buy Canon 17-40, it's worth the extra money.
Clear, Rugged Landscape Lens- if the price is right!
19 June 2009
Summary: After realizing that I was too poor to replace a broken $700 Nikkor lens with another Nikon AF-D unit, I decided to try my luck at 3rd party lenses. I had decent success with Tokina glass similar to the unit I'm reviewing here, and terrible results with everything I tried from Tamron.