Sebastian?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... Can you say more about mechanical > construction? Is > Sigma reliable? Do you have any problems with dust? I=B4ve heard that > in > comparison with Canon is Sigma worse. But it maybe sporadic opinion. > > Sebastian
I've found the Sigma to be fine mechanically. I've not had any problem with dust. One thing I particularly like on the Sigma is the good depth of field scale for f/11 and f/16 (which would be more useful if the Sigma had full time manual focusing). I have not used the Canon EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM, though I have 6 other Canon lenses. The only thing I've noticed about the Sigma is that the lens and rear caps are just slightly different, the rear lens cap on the Sigma is just slightly looser than the Canon EF's. The Sigma 17-35 EX HSM is the only Sigma I own. From reading, I would guess that Sigma was trying to improve when it came out with the EX lenses. I've had no complaint with mine. Hope this helps, Bill Jameson * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
