Gilbert Tseng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in part):
>
> I'm considering purchasing a new 17-35 / 20-35mm zoom but don't have the
> cash for the 17-35L . I was considering either the Canon 20-35 lens or the
> Sigma 17-35. From what I gather having lurked on the list for quite some
> time, both lenses are respectable. I was wondering if anyone had any major
> complaints on either lens? Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> Also, if I were to get a filter for the lens, is it absolutely necessary to
> get a low profile filter? They seem to be ever so much more expensive to
> get a nice multicoated slim filter, but I'm worried about vingetting at the
> wide angles.
...
Speaking only for the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 EX HSM, I have absolutely no
vignetting on my negatives using a standard (not thin) Hoya HMC skylight
filter. Daniel Rocha, with the same lens reports no vignetting with a
standard circular polarizer. Do note that the Sigma filter size is 82mm,
while the Canon 20-35 and the 17-35 L use 77mm filters.
"Andre Vallejo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> commented
..."With my 17-35,common filters will vignette.Get the best slim
multicoated you
can."
but it's not clear which 17-35 he's referring to.
I picked the Sigma, mostly for the additional coverage at the wide end, but
I've rarely heard anything but praise for the Canon EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5.
Bill Jameson
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
