9 out of 10 points and recommendedexcellent sharpness, light weight, tough building quality.no IS system; very visible due to the white coating
It's a solid, tack-sharp lens at all focal lenghts and f/stops. The light weight makes it an exellent solution for travels, even if this version does not have an IS system (I would dream to try the new version, but it's 400 $ more just for the image stabilization!). I changed it when I decided to try the Canon 70-300 DO IS, but this was one of the worst changes I could have made.reviewed December 31st, 2006
9 out of 10 points and recommendedexcellent sharpness, not too big, great carry around lens on my 20DNothing at all. Maybe expensive.
I bought this lens to substitute the 17-85 IS, that I did not find so good due to the very high distortion at 17mm. It's a bit bigger than the previous one, but it's still an excellent lens for travelling. I like to take pictures in low light conditions, and this lens is probably the best possibile solution for this kind of photography. I use it for the 80% of my shots and I am very happy of it, in spite of the rather high price.reviewed December 31st, 2006 (purchased for $1,200)
5 out of 10 points and not recommendedvery small and light. IS is a plus. the 300mm focal length can be very useful sometimes.random results in sharpness and general image quality. Sugffers for diffraction, impossibile to use it against light.
I kept this lens for nearly six months. I fould it impossible to predict what the result of a shot would be, due to the extreme tendency to internal flare and to very odd sharpness (it can be very good or horrible, depending on various factors). I personally think that the optical design mus have some problems). I wpould not recommend it, and personally I switched to a Sigma 700-200 2,8, that is a bulky but excellent lens.reviewed December 31st, 2006 (purchased for $1,100)
8 out of 10 points and recommendedQuite sharp, light, good carry around lens.high distortion at wideangle.
It's an excellent carry around lens. I like IS lenses, and this one can be a good choice for low light situations, candids, etc. Nevertheless I found it sometimes not so sharp at max. focal lenght, and I had diffcultiers due to the very high distortion at full wideangle. I switched to a 24-105 L IS , of which I am very happy, but I believe that the 17-85 is still a good choice especially in its price range.reviewed December 31st, 2006 (purchased for $600)
6 out of 10 points and recommendedvery small, very cheap.Not sharp. Poor building quality. Not suitable as a standard lens for digital SLR with 1,6 cropping factor.
I bought this lens second hand. I did not find it very sharp, but I must admit I could have found a bad sample. The lens has a poor building quality, but you cannot pretend much for the price it costs. The main problem is that it becomes a 80 mm effective focal on my EOS 20D, quite useless to become the standard lens.reviewed December 31st, 2006 (purchased for $70)
9 out of 10 points and recommendedVery wide. Sharp over f.5,6. No distortion at all, a miracle!Needs to be stopped at f.8 and over for the best results
I used to have a Sigma 15-30 before purchasing this lens, but I needed a larger angle coverage for some architectural pictures. This lens has no real distortion even at 12mm, and it's quite sharp if you use it at f.5,6 and over. I have no idea of what it could produce on a full format SLR, but it gives excellent results on my canon EOS 20D.reviewed December 31st, 2006 (purchased for $750)
7 out of 10 points and recommendedgood build quality. Quite sharp. Not very expensive for its range. Works on a full frame SLRDistortion at 15 mm. Best sharpness when over f.8
Good wideangle zoom, one of the few suitable both for full frame and digital SLR. You could find it not so sharp wide open, but super wide zooms are a tricky affair for lens makers, and you cannot expect from them the same results you get from good tele zoom or fixed focals...If you want something more, go to the Sigma 12-24, that is certainly a better performer.reviewed December 31st, 2006 (purchased for $500)
8 out of 10 points and recommendedexcellent sharpness,solid construction, f.2,8 , tripod collar included.very very heavy.
It's a solid, heavy lens. It gives the same optical results you can get from a Canon 70-200 f.4 (I had them both). Probably one of the best Sigma lenses. I own the first version, the new one should be even better!reviewed December 31st, 2006 (purchased for $500)