I have "done" the deed and ordered the Sigma.
Many thanks for your help in this matter
Richard Corbett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Jameson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Sigma 17-35 zoom
> "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
***********************************************************
