Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)I debated for a while wether to spend the money on the Canon L series 16-35mm, 17-40mm, or this lens. The 17-40mm was almost triple the price and the 16-35mm is 10x the price. So I went to the store and held each one and took some test shots on a tripod at the same settings and outside the store onthe side of the road in Atlanta, GA. The cityscape made a very nice test subject. Okay, to compare the three and explain my decision let me start out with build quality. The Canons feel like they belong on a tank, solid gigantic hunks of metal, very sturdy. But after using them for a little while the weight does wear on you. They don't just look heavy, they are heavy. The sigma is much lighter and a little shorter. The construction is very nice with a beautiful black surface finish. It looks and feels like it will be very rugged. I wouldn't want to drop any of the three on the pavement but I do think the canons would probably survive the experience. But I baby all my gear so I wasn't so worried about the possibility of a drop. But If I had to haul the canons in a pack all day or on the camera I would get very tired, I do alot of walking/exploring shooting and I use the 5D which is already heavy enough with the battery grip and flash attached. So the sigma won out for usability and portability. Now here comes the big surprise, when I got home and looked at the pictures side by side the Sigma was sharper across the board than the 17-40mm and on par with the 16-35mm. The color depth was a tiny bit better from the 17-40mm versus the other two but I could easily get the other two to that point with a quick fix in photoshop.Some people might say well the sigma is a veriable f2.8-f4 aperture lens where the 17-40mm is a fixed f4 and the 16-35mm is a f2.8 fixed and i say to them that I mainly use the 17-35mm range for landscapes and you never use your lens at f2.8 on landscapes nothing will be in focus. I regularlr stop my lens down to the F16-F22 all the time. So I would never need a fixed aperture. plus at 17mm at F4 you can still hand hold at1/20th of a second and at say iso 800 that is plenty enough to take band pics in a deemly lit bar with some very interesting and pleasing effects. So I would say if you are going to be shooting in a war zone or the Sahara get the canon 16-35mm it really is the best pro ultra wide there is, but if you want the quality of the canon for a 10th the price and you aren't in a extreme environment get the sigma, it is a diamond in the rough and an asset to my camera bag. I would also recommend getting a good UV protective filter for the front of the lens. Any little speck or scratch on the front optic is very visible because of the wide angle.
Click Here to see more reviews about: Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG IF HSM Aspherical Super Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
Product Description:
A super wide-angle zoom lens with a 104 degrees angle of view, and large aperture. This lens is ideal for Digital SLR Cameras. Includes 4 Year Service Plan (1 year international warranty plus 3 years extended warranty). Item Specifications: Product Description: Sigma EX wide-angle zoom lens - 17 mm - 35 mm Lens System: Wide-angle zoom lens Mounting Type: Canon EF Lens Aperture: F/2.8-4.0 Focal Length: 17 mm - 35 mm Optical Zoom: 2 x Min Focus Range: 10.6 in Focus Adjustment: Automatic, manual Lens Construction: 13 group(s) / 16 element(s) Special Functions: Wide angle, zoom Filter Size: 77 mm Length: 3 in Weight: 19.8 oz
Want to read more honest consumer review about Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG IF HSM Aspherical Super Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras now ?
