- Messages
- 7,821
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've been using a CPL a lot more lately [both systems] which is fine, but it just means I have to use the EVF on the X100f and I will admit, when it keeps popping up & down it does get on my nerves a bit 
The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread
- Thread starter mart77
- Start date
- Messages
- 5,615
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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?
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:
- Messages
- 9,268
- Name
- Trevor
- Edit My Images
- No
Have you checked out the Tamron 17-70 f2.8. I’ve had it. Really liked it.
- Messages
- 5,615
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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!
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:
- Messages
- 5,615
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A brilliant and very helpful reply Andrew, many thanks!
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.