PsyKotik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looking to buy a gently used :) Canon 20-35mm f2.8 lens. If anyone has comments about this lense or Sigma 17-35 f2.8, your input will be greatly appreciated. The new Canon 17-35 is def. out of my budget.
------------------------------ I purchased the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 EX HSM in July, 2000 after studying a lot of reviews, and repeatedly failing to save up the money for the Canon 17-35 L (There wasn't a Canon EF16-35 L back then). Several quick things: the HSM on the Sigma is "micro-HSM," which like Canon's "micro-USM" does not allow full time manual focus. The Canon L's are ring-USM which do have full time manual focus. Next, check out the detailed results for the Canon 17-35L and the Sigma 17-35 EX at photodo.com: http://193.14.88.41/nav/prodindex.html I've been very, very happy with the Sigma, as have Daniel Rocha, and Skip from Shadowcatcher, both of whom post on rec.photo.equipment.35mm. I've got no vignetting on my negatives with an 82mm Hoya HMC skylight on the lens, the flare is much better controlled than on my Canon EF24-85 USM, distortion is moderate, unobjectionable to me, your mileage may vary. I shoot it mostly at f/11-f/16, which is what I intended when I bought it. Shots I've taken at wider apertures seem fine to me as well. I find the manual focus ring underdamped, but rarely use it, the autofocus works well on my Elan IIe and my EOS 3. It's got a good, usable depth of field markings on the barrel for f/11 and f/16. Hope this helps, Bill Jameson * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
