[heatherslightbox]

I've been saying that my next lens purchase is going to be the 21/3.2, but I've also been toying with the idea of just getting a wide-angle zoom, especially after seeing this deal on Amazon:

Amazon.com: Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG IF Aspherical Super Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Pentax and Samsung SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

I figure for less than half the cost, this would still fulfill my need for WA coverage. Even though the 77mm filters are pricy, the cost of them added to the cost of the lens will still be significantly less than the 21. Pop photo has tested both lenses and it looks as subjective quality factor charts on both lenses are similar.

Lens Test: Pentax 21mm f/3.2 DA AF Limited - - PopPhotoDecember 2006
Lens Test: Sigma 17–35mm f/2.8–4 EX DG AF - - PopPhotoJune 2007

Has anybody had any experience with this lens?

Thanks!
Heather

[dkittle]

I just got one this week. Very nice build quality and I love being able to put it on a film camera as well (where it turns into obscenely wide angle). Unfortunately, I haven't played with it enough to give a definitive opinion on sharpness. It's an EX lens, though, so it should be good.

[heatherslightbox]

For anybody who's interested in seeing some pictures, check out the following review:
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG

Unfortunately, you can't blow them up any further, but they still look pretty good.

Heather

[heatherslightbox]

I found another source for sample pics on pbase:

Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG ASP HSM Lens Sample Photos and Specifications

One thing was pleasantly surprised with is how well this lens does at night. While most of these pics were taken with other mounts, there are a few that I did find that were taken with a K100D that were very nice.

Heather

[barbosas]

That sigma looks realy good, is it digital only?

or can be used on film cameras?

thanks

[heatherslightbox]

According to the PopPhoto article: Lens Test: Sigma 17–35mm f/2.8–4 EX DG AF - - PopPhotoJune 2007
and Don (dkittle) in a previous post, it can be used on film SLRs as well.

I just sold my ZX-30, but I want to get a better film body sometime later on, so my whole lens kit will be both digital and film-compatible.

Never mind getting a 10-20 or a 14 for extra wide pics. If you've got a film SLR, a roll of film is cheaper. Even if you don't have a film SLR body, it would still be a lot cheaper to go out and pick up a body than an extra-wide digital-only lens.

Trying to keep it (somewhat) cheap...

Heather

[barbosas]

But it doesn't have aperture ring, so it will not work with older bodies, like MX, ME,etc..

Correct?

[Duh_Vinci]

I have considered this lens once, specially based on current low prices and good prior experience with Sigma EX lenses.

Check out the user reviews of both versions of this lens: FM Reviews - Sigma Zoom lenses

Regards,
D

[jebidiam]

I just got this lens, except off of ebay, and not as cheap as that amazon price

For the good news, it actually does have an aperture ring. So it'll work on anything K-mount. Otherwise, I'm not sure about this lens. I suspect I have a dud, but it might be me. It doesn't seem too sharp to me, and the colors are blah. I have a Sigma service center near me, so I will get it checked out eventually.

Here are 2 sample pics I took, click for bigger versions and EXIF info:

[Duh_Vinci]

I just looked at your original size photos, and at f8 and f16 - honestly, I would expect this lens to be much sharper... I'd definitely swing by the Sigma center to have them look at it.

Regards,
D

[jebidiam]

Thanks for looking at the big versions Duh_Vinci. The outside pic was a real quickie, and I didn't use the best settings there. But after playing with the lens on a tripod I started to realize I couldn't get an even focus. Like one side of the pic would be fine and the opposite side would be crap.

BTW, nice to see another Virginian. I spent most of my life in Hampton VA.

[heatherslightbox]

Check out the user reviews of both versions of this lens: FM Reviews - Sigma Zoom lenses

Regards,
D

I took a look at the Fred Miranda reviews and based on other user's comments, this lens seems to have inconsistent performance. If I were to get one, it could be great or it could be a total dud. I really don't want to have to fool with trying to get a dud fixed, even if it's under warranty.

I'm wondering if I should now hold out for either a 21, Sigma 18-50/2.8 macro, or the Tamron 17-50/2.8 slated to come out next month. I'm expecting a $100 rebate from Pentax to show up any day now, plus I can sell my DS once the K10 gets here (figuring $200-250), plus possibly another lens, which would put me in the ballpark of any of these lenses, money-wise.

Heck, maybe I should just plunk down $50 or so for a used kit lens and be done with it.

What do you think?

Heather

[jebidiam]

I got my Sigma 17-35mm back from the local Sigma service center. It is better than it was before the service, but it still isn't that good. I'm not impressed with this lens at all.

[dkittle]

Pornflake, it does have an aperture ring - works great on film and digital.

[creampuff]

Heather in your search for lenses, save the money and just stick with the DA 18-55mm kit. It gives good snappy images on digital and is wide enough. A lot of people use it as a cheap wide angle. If you want a little better and more versatility, then the Sigma 17-70 is a good option.

The Sigma 18-50/2.8 macro and Tamron 17-50/2.8 both don't cover any wider FOV than the kit lens and you'll be paying much more for the constant f/2.8. Unless you're a prime shooter, you can go with the DA 14 or 21 (which isn't really that wide) but you're still gonna be paying quite a bit more. As for me I use the DA 16-45.

3rd party wide angle zooms can vary in terms of quality. They may be cheap used, but the colours aren't quite like those from Pentax lenses.