The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Anyone here got any experience with the Sigma 17 -40 f1.8?
It looks surprisingly long for its focal length from what I've seen but seems to have an aperture ring so if it's reasonably sharp and fast to focus it might be worth a try..!
Or are there any better alternatives that are a similar weight (or lighter) but not as expensive as the fuji 16-55 mkii?
 
Last edited:
stevewestern said:
Anyone here got any experience with the Sigma 17 -40 f1.8?
It looks surprisingly long for its focal length from what I've seen but seems to have an aperture ring so if it's reasonably sharp and fast to focus it might be worth a try..!
Or are there any better alternatives that are a similar weight (or lighter) but not as expensive as the fuji 16-55 mkii?
Click to expand...

Have you checked out the Tamron 17-70 f2.8. I’ve had it. Really liked it.
 
trevorbray said:
Have you checked out the Tamron 17-70 f2.8. I’ve had it. Really liked it.
Click to expand...
No, I've not.
I was drawn to the Sigma mainly because of the maximum aperture of f1.8, which really appeals.
I've always been a zoom user rather than primes but recently have felt a need for a shallower DoF at times.
I'd certainly prefer the longer reach of the tamron!
 
stevewestern said:
Anyone here got any experience with the Sigma 17 -40 f1.8?
It looks surprisingly long for its focal length from what I've seen but seems to have an aperture ring so if it's reasonably sharp and fast to focus it might be worth a try..!
Or are there any better alternatives that are a similar weight (or lighter) but not as expensive as the fuji 16-55 mkii?
Click to expand...

I bought one a few weeks ago.

It is physically odd. It feels long and slim given the focal length. But it doesn't extend while zooming. It's basically as long as the 90 F2 and slight slimmer.

It's an odd focal range. It feels like 40 is a bit too wide at the long end - and that's not compensated for at the short end of the zoom. It's in effect a 24-60 equivalent.

The aperture ring is odd. I'm used to feeling for a serated surface - but the top part of the aperture ring on the 17-40 where the numbers are is smooth. So oddly I have found myself moving my hand slight forward to the zoom ring because my index finger runs over the smooth part of the aperture ring feeling for a seration and doesn't find it until it meets the zoom right just a bit forward. I still have to think about that sometimes at the start of each session if working from the viewfinder..

It's now my main working lens on my X-H2. I tend to use it mainly at F2.8 and F4 so it's not really being challenged in terms of performance. I'm happy with the results. I trust it.

The focusing system is good - quick and silent. The 16-55 mk ii maybe felt a bit more assured. But the 17-40 is no slouch.

The lens hood is slightly rubberised. I found it was picking up dust from the inside of my camera bag. (Solution -- vacuum the camera bag). It's also a bit wide. But on the whole I'm happy with it. I use lens hoods as protection when moving about with my camera near surfaces and objects -- and it does that quite well.

In terms of sharpness I think it's good. I often carry about a 90 F2 - and the difference is hard to explain. It's as if the 17-40 shots are good just past 100% when pixel peeping but the 90 F2 is sort of good to 200%. Maybe the way to think about this is that it's a lens that goes to 10 but the 90 F2 manages to go to 11.

Anyway - if the focal length range and size are not limitations - then I'd recommend it based on my experience so far. It's good value for money. I got mine at a Wex open day when they discounted it. If you can get a deal then the value for money is very good.
 
Last edited:
Dryce said:
I bought one a few weeks ago.

It is physically odd. It feels long and slim given the focal length. But it doesn't extend while zooming. It's basically as long as the 90 F2 and slight slimmer.

It's an odd focal range. It feels like 40 is a bit too wide at the long end - and that's not compensated for at the short end of the zoom. It's in effect a 24-60 equivalent.

The aperture ring is odd. I'm used to feeling for a serated surface - but the top part of the aperture ring on the 17-40 where the numbers are is smooth. So oddly I have found myself moving my hand slight forward to the zoom ring because my index finger runs over the smooth part of the aperture ring feeling for a seration and doesn't find it until it meets the zoom right just a bit forward. I still have to think about that sometimes at the start of each session if working from the viewfinder..

It's now my main working lens on my X-H2. I tend to use it mainly at F2.8 and F4 so it's not really being challenged in terms of performance. I'm happy with the results. I trust it.

The focusing system is good - quick and silent. The 16-55 mk ii maybe felt a bit more assured. But the 17-40 is no slouch.

The lens hood is slightly rubberised. I found it was picking up dust from the inside of my camera bag. (Solution -- vacuum the camera bag). It's also a bit wide. But on the whole I'm happy with it. I use lens hoods as protection when moving about with my camera near surfaces and objects -- and it does that quite well.

In terms of sharpness I think it's good. I often carry about a 90 F2 - and the difference is hard to explain. It's as if the 17-40 shots are good just past 100% when pixel peeping but the 90 F2 is sort of good to 200%. Maybe the way to think about this is that it's a lens that goes to 10 but the 90 F2 manages to go to 11.

Anyway - if the focal length range and size are not limitations - then I'd recommend it based on my experience so far. It's good value for money. I got mine at a Wex open day when they discounted it. If you can get a deal then the value for money is very good.
Click to expand...
A brilliant and very helpful reply Andrew, many thanks!
 
stevewestern said:
No, I've not.
I was drawn to the Sigma mainly because of the maximum aperture of f1.8, which really appeals.
I've always been a zoom user rather than primes but recently have felt a need for a shallower DoF at times.
I'd certainly prefer the longer reach of the tamron!
Click to expand...

I think the 70mm long end is a nice selling point for the Tamron. I think there will be quite a few people who think the 40mm on the Sigma is a bit short to live with.
 
stevewestern said:
Anyone here got any experience with the Sigma 17 -40 f1.8?
It looks surprisingly long for its focal length from what I've seen but seems to have an aperture ring so if it's reasonably sharp and fast to focus it might be worth a try..!
Or are there any better alternatives that are a similar weight (or lighter) but not as expensive as the fuji 16-55 mkii?
Click to expand...
The new tamron 16-50 2.8 is getting rave reviews on Youtube. 305 grams and only £399.
 
It’s been a while.. about to get back into my street stuff (once I buy a body and some lenses!) but going through some of my older stuff as inspiration

Bulldog on the X-H1 and 16mm

And “Legs” on the X-H1 and 23mmB93FA086-DBCE-4E92-9794-A6E4F509BDE42019-03-16_14-18-00_000.jpeg

2019-04-14 11.08.47-2-1.jpeg
 
NickTB said:
It’s been a while.. about to get back into my street stuff (once I buy a body and some lenses!) but going through some of my older stuff as inspiration

Bulldog on the X-H1 and 16mm

And “Legs” on the X-H1 and 23mmView attachment 497549

View attachment 497547
Click to expand...
Good to see you back. I’ve been toying with the idea of throwing away the xh1 box and diving in
 
Graham Forbes said:
Fountains Abbey ruins. Established in 1132 by Cistercian monks

Fuji X100 VI

https://flic.kr/p/2sM1c7y
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/205078167@N07/55643248216/in/dateposted-public/


Rievaulx Abbey ruins. Established in 1132 by Benedictine monks who changed to Cistercians 3 years later.

Fuji X100 VI

https://flic.kr/p/2sM2fvU
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/205078167@N07/55643454774/in/dateposted-public/
Click to expand...
Great shots.

Somewhere I have on my list to visit but have never done. Maybe something for this winter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top