"Dicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a yen to own a Canon 17-35mm L lens, however I believe that the price
> is greater than a yen, actually it's about �1,100 sterling over here.
>
> Anyone using this objective may care to offer an opinion, and in addition it
> may be possible for someone to comment on the Sigma equivalent which is the
> merest fraction of the cost of a Canon....oh dear, oh dear, I really
> shouldn't have said that should I?
>
> Richard Corbett
I purchased the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 nearly a year ago, after repeatedly
failing to save up enough money for the Canon EF 17-35 L.
I've been pleased with the Sigma. Several things to note to make an
informed decision. The Sigma has a longer mininmum focus than the Canon,
0.5 meters, 8 cm longer than the Canon. The Sigma's HSM is "micro HSM",
which like Canon's micro USM, doesn't allow full time manual focus (with
the sole exception of the EF 50mm f/1.4). The Sigma's filter size is 82mm
[Canon's is 77mm], pricey for filters, but I will note that I have seen no
vignetting on my negatives with a Hoya HMC Skylight filter and Daniel Rocha
reported no vignetting with a normal (not thin) circular polarizer.
Photodo.com test results put them pretty close, shot at infinity, with the
edge seeming to go to the Sigma at 17mm and to the Canon at 35mm. Take a
look at both lenses individual test results at the photodo.com site.
Popular Photography's tests seemed to damn both of these lenses with faint
praise, calling the Sigma 'slightly above average,' while bitterly
complaining about the distortion and field curvature on the Canon. Their
SQF numbers were very close, however.
Peter Burian reviewed the Sigma in the 11/99 issue of Shutterbug and he
seemed to be favorably impressed. I will note that the Canon remained on
his wish list that he mentioned before he left one of the photo newsgroups
about six months ago.
I've been very pleased with the results with my Sigma, though I will note
that I almost always shoot it the way I intended when I got it: stopped
down at f/11 or f/16. Larger aperture shots seemed good to me, but I did no
rigorous testing wide open.
Hope this helps,
Bill Jameson
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
