Tom Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> Peter, you once took me to task in some comments I made about the Tamron
> lens, but reading your comments here make me want to ask what your (and
> others') thoughts on on the best way to go below 20mm in the EOS world. My
> current superwide is the Canon 20-35 USM (not the L), and I've often thought
> either the Canon or Sigma 17-35 would be the replacement for it someday
> because I think I would really enjoy the extra coverage. But not enough to
> buy a prime, unless it was the Tokina 17mm, which I don't know very well.
> I'd rather have the convenience of a zoom AND not add a lens to my kit but
> just replace one. Not that I'm not happy with what I've got, but I know I'd
> use that other 3mm from time to time.
>
> Tom P.
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll throw in my 2 cents, anyway. I have
the Sigma 17-35, and I'm very happy with it. I rented the Canon 17-35L
and the 15mm fisheye, and ended up buying the Sigma versions of both.
The sharpness of the Sigma wide zoom, subjectively, seems equal to the
Canon, and distortion about the same, at about 1/3 the price. It is
very well built, seemingly mostly of metal, focuses pretty fast, it is
an EX model, but lacks the FTM of the Canon. BTW, pretty much the same
comments go for the fisheye, too, for what it's worth.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
