Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 any good?

Dangleman

Dangleman

Messages
1,316
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
No
Just wondering if anyone has any experience of this lens, and if it's any good. Have found a copy going for a song.

It's to go on a D3, and before anyone starts crying about putting rubbish glass on a D3, please don't, I just want an inexpensive but good enough super wide for a full frame camera for now (obviously I'd like the Nikon 14-24 but not an option at the mo....)
 
no idea on the lens, but i thinkmost people recomend the sigma 10-20 for super wide lenses
 
Hi fella

I know, but the 10-20 is a DC lens designed for a cropped sensor - The Nikon D3 is full frame and the 10-20 would run in crop mode at reduced res.
The 17-35 on full frame would give roughly the same field of view as the 10-20 on a crop.
I seem to see very mixed reviews on the Sigma 17-35 lens though, some say it's great, others say it's terrible, whereas the 10-20 gets pretty good reviews all round...
 
I had this lens on a canon... Like most short lenses from sigma that I know of it was soft to one side..For any short sigma lens I would reccomend get seller to take a picture of say a wall taken flat on (not angle) and send you the full uncropped none proccessed pic..maybe at diff fstops but deffo at each end of the aperture :)
 
Hi Kipax

That's what worries me - I know sigma lenses can be a bit hit and miss and I don't want a dud, even if it is cheap. That's a v good suggestion though, will give it a go - it's actually a second hand camera shop with a website, don't know how 'helpful' they will be but won't hurt to ask will it...

A shot of a nice rough brick wall would probably be best wouldn't it.
 
How much confidence would you have in their ability to have the camera *exactly* square on to the brick wall? Most of the "my lens is soft" type threads I see here are based on photos that have been shot with less-than-rigorous technique...

My suggestion: Make sure they guarantee to take the lens back and refund your money if you test it and find fault with it within say 7 days.
 
I've had one for a few years - tidy enough lens for the money, only issue i have had is the AF not working. I had it repaired just outside warranty and its failed again recently. Not sure whether its the switch or motor, but i've seen similar comments lately about failures on Sigmas 10-20 too.

Switch isn't an issue with Nikon mount though, so just accept its a £300 glass and it'll be fine.

On a FF camera it should give you enough scope for most work - alternative is the 12-24 if you feel the need for a bit more width.
 
What's the difference between the Aspherical version of this lens and the EX DG?

Guessing one suits full frame and the other doesn't?:thinking:
 
Depends on how much it costs, if as you say its going for a song then get it.
They get mixed reviews but its a fairly cheap way of getting UWA on a FF camera.
 
Scout n' About said:
What's the difference between the Aspherical version of this lens and the EX DG?

Guessing one suits full frame and the other doesn't?:thinking:
Click to expand...

They're all full frame, just the EX DG is the branding since digital became the norm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top