9 out of 10 points and recommendedsmall and light, bright, good sharpness and contrast, good at macrosnone - maybe the loud autofocus; HSM would be good
I think this is the best walk-around lens - the image quality is so much better than my previous Sigma 18-125 which was duller in colors and not sharp. The focusing is about the same - adequate but not more. The 17-70 take amazing macros: at 70 mm, it can focus on an object almost touching the glass.reviewed January 14th, 2007
8 out of 10 points and recommendedultrawide is fun; relatively smallfirst one was faulty; heavy distortion
I never thought I'd use an ultrawide lens this often. Even playing around with the heavy distortion at the sides is fun.reviewed January 14th, 2007
This is a heavy lens for its size, but it's built like a tank.
My first copy had a widely reported fault: the right side of the pictures was horribly blurred. The second copy is fine. So check the image quality before you buy. If you get a good one you will love this lens.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedsize, no weight at all; sharp as a Swiss knife; great bokehfeels like it's made of paper
Considering the price, this lens is a must. My 350D with this lens attached is smaller and lighter than many of the more serious compact digicams. Fantastic sharpness and bokeh. Great for portraits. It's also flimsy and too light but I don't care.reviewed January 14th, 2007
9 out of 10 points and recommendedIncredibly sharp; silent and *relatively* fast AF; very solidly builtIt's not a small or light lens
I bought this lens to replace my previous Sigma 105 mm maco - the snail-pace autofocus with the extending lens was driving me mad. The 150 mm Sigma is much better in this regard, although it still often hunts - but that is to be expected with a macro lens. The greater working distance is a boon with bug photography. The image quality is great, just as with all dedicated prime macro lenses. In this respect, it's not better and not worse than the old 105 mm lens.reviewed January 14th, 2007
4 out of 10 points and not recommendedreach, size, weightmine was not sharp and its colors/contrast were dull
This lens looked just right for a beginner SLR user. But I soon found out that my copy was not sharp, and the focusing was not accurate. My subsequent Sigma 17-70 mm was so much better, also in contrast and colors. (Unfortunately, that one was stolen but I'll get another soon.)reviewed January 14th, 2007
8 out of 10 points and recommendedrange, price, build qualitybig and heavy, no image stabilisation, mine is not sharp at 500 mm
At this range, this is the only lens that I find affordable. I haven't regretted buying it, but mine is not perfect. The biggest gripe is that it's not very sharp at 500 mm, even in bright sunlight, with a tripod.reviewed January 14th, 2007
If a stabilised version came out, I'd sell the current lens and buy that version. It really needs IS - although hand-held shots are not impossible in strong daylight. Also, the lens is very big and heavy, but that is to be expected. The autofocus is not on par with Canon's USM but it's OK.
Be prepared for some mundane issues if you are not used to this range: at 500 mm, just finding a flying bird or plane in the viewfinder is difficult.