Sigma 17-35 F2.8-4 EX DG Aspherical  reviews

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: derekw   review date: August-27-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5
Sigma 24-135 f2.8-4.5
Minolta 24-85 f3.5-4.5
Minolta 18-70 f3.5-5.6

price paid:

140 GBP

positive:

Sharpness
Beautiful colour rendition
Well built but not heavy
Distortion well controlled
Negligible flare even without hood with sun in the frame
77mm filters - as 24-135

negative:

Sharpness 17-24 at max apertures

comment:

Very sharp across the range from f5.6 onwards

Sigma 24-135 better at max apertures between 24-35, and very similar stopped down.

Likewise with the 24-85.

Better than the kit lens by some margin. Sigma 17-70 is better in this range up to f5.6, after which similar IQ is obtained.

All in all if you dont need max aperture between 17-24 a very capable lens. Vert good value for money at the price I paid

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: nilotek   review date: August-24-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sony SAL 18-55
Minolta 35-105 old
Minolta 70-210/4

positive:

- no issues at all with this lens using it on aps-c
- very high IQ on aps-c
- produces very sharp images above f 4
- f 2.8 is nice, when needed
- nice wide angle on film

negative:

- a bit soft at 2.8
- soft in the corners on film
- much distortion on film
- a bit tricky to put on the lens cap when hood is attached
- huge front element, 82mm!

comment:

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: dumbasadoorknob   review date: March-11-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tok 17/3.5
Min 35/2RS

price paid:

usd 179 used

positive:

compact
neat case
good build
fine aperture range

negative:

nothing much, except
very large filters

comment:

This is an excellent lens. It is every bit as good as my Tokina 17, with a slightly faster aperture wide open. The Tokina has slightly truer colors to my thinking, but I am so pleased with this lens overall that I'm thinking of jettisoning the Tok -- and that is a big change, because the Tok is an excellent lens indeed.

This lens isn't as good as my Min35/2RS, but it is still a very good lens at 35/4.

I compared different sun flare, sensor glare and radiant lines from direct sun in a number of my lenses recently, and the coating on this lens works well in mitigating these issues. Far better than uncoated lenses.

I like Sigma's build, and the extra little details on the lens and in the padded cases. I've had no problem with compatibility at all.

The lens is about twice the size and weight of the Tok 17, with a very large filter size -- 77mm; but this, which once was a disadvantage (and these filters cost a lot) is now one of the standard Zeiss/Sony lens sizes, so the filters can be swapped around.

I still don't know if I'll keep the Tok and sell this, or sell the Tok and keep this Sigma. And that is just a measure of the true excellence of this lens, because when did you last encounter a zoom that can compete head-to-head with a prime? This can.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: pcarmalt   review date: April-01-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 17-35 F2.8-4 EX DG
Sony 20 F2.8
Sony 24-105 F3.5-4.5
Tamron 28-75 F2.8
Minolta 28-135 F4-4.5

price paid:

GBP 170

positive:

+ Quite sharp at apertures it's likely to be used at (F8-16)
+ Not much CA
+ Low distortion (much less barrel distortion than 28-135 @ 28mm)

negative:

- Colour not great. Colours seem a bit flat and also slight yellow cast.
- Very soft wide open, NOT a low-light lens.
- Quite big (esp compared to 20/2.8 prime)
- In Lightroom shows up as "28-80mm F3.5-5.6"

comment:

This was a good introduction to ultra-wide on full-frame for me. It's not a bad lens, and has visibly less distortion and less CA than the 28-135mm @ 28mm. However, seems to have a yellow cast, especially in low light, and I find it difficult to improve the colours in pp.

I realised I was always using it at 17mm so I sold it and bought the Sony 20/2.8 instead.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Mitchins   review date: March-07-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

minolta AF 28mm 2.8
sony AF DR 18-70mm
minolta 28-75m F2.8 (D)

price paid:

300 AUD

positive:

77mm usable filter thread (vs bayonet)
Covers very wide to usable portrait
Size and weight is acceptable
Well priced

negative:

Slow (F4.0) at portrait end (35mm)
Front element is quite round
Perspective distortion at 17mm requires some experience for proper shooting

comment:

At first I was hesitant about this lens due to sigma's reputation, but after owning the 105mm macro lens I thought I'd give it a shot, my only other option for Alpha 850 was the 12-24mm which was ALOT more expensive - I'm glad I did however.

Let me impress the sheer novelty of shooting at 17mm, it's VERY WIDE; although it's nice to have F2.8 for those times when you probably just want a "party shot", you'l probably shoot around F5 to minimise all vignette and bring centre detail up to excellent, and improve corners.

Corner sharpness at 17mm may not be that great until smaller apertures, but we're talking far corners on a full frame - it's not usually a problem. The true pay-off of this lens is that 17mm is unsuitable for most close-up portraits, however 35mm straightens out nicely. I didn't rate the lens down for the distortion at 17mm, it's a side-effect of fitting such a large field of view exaggerating depth - which works great for indoor architecture shots. Other distortions are very well controlled, and there are barely signs of chromatic aberration

Colours seem neutral, it has good contrast, maybe returns slightly warm colours but it could just be the camera's AWB - in any event when shooting in raw all colour detail and contrast is there.

I haven't used this lens in enough similar conditions to compare it thoroughly, but it definitely has better CA control and detail than the 18-70mm I used on my A200. Bokeh seems to be nice, possibly better towards the long end, but I'll update my review with experience.

All in all - I would recommend this lens for somebody wanting a versatile wide angle for full-frame that won't cost the world.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Xentrax   review date: May-08-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-50/4

price paid:

200 USD new

positive:

Quite sharp at 17mm/f4.

Acceptable at 17mm/f2.8.

Small MFD.

negative:

The worst thing is its cap. When hood is on, one cannot remove the cap easily. I am going to buy another cap.


Filter thread 77mm.


f2.8 ONLY at 17mm.

Not sharp in the corners up to f/5.6. (Sigma's own MTF of this lens seems to be correct).


Film camera Maxxum 7 does not always operate AF - happens after I install the lens with "too careful" action, slowly.

comment:

200USD seemed to be a good deal and it was so indead. Happy. I heard of Sigma variations in quality, so it seems I was lucky.

According to tests found on the Web this lens has better distortion @17mm than Nikon or Tamron and compares to Canon(L) 17-35/2.8.
As I can see barrel distortion @17mm is very small, at least when used on a cropped camera.


Colors are very good, they are just not like 50/1.4 which I like. I'm not good at judging colors though.


Made a test shot with a sun in the corner. No flare, contrast is good. Surprised.

Build is solid, but the cap is competely idiotic.

Focus ring does allow precise manual focusing.

Use it mostly at 17mm.

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: chefkenny   review date: April-20-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50/1.7
Minolta 28/2.8

price paid:

200 USD(new)

positive:

Sharp, Color, fast focus, build

negative:

17mm not as sharp as other range

comment:

Well this is a very well build and sharp wide lens, very happy with this purchase wish they can make it as sharp as other range on 17mm.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: vandykee   review date: April-03-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sigma non-EX lenses

price paid:

200 or something

positive:

build
wide enough
feels and works well

negative:

none
oh yes the cap is a nuisance with the petal hood on.

comment:

i bash my gear around. this lens is high quality enough. rocks on the a700.

i got this lens after reading these (few) reviews. i use it daily and have -no- regrets. the picky people eaters will say they wish this was f3.5 at 35mm, but i don't. i also got a f3.5@35 35-105mm to compliment it.

sharpness: 4 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: richard42   review date: March-08-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

kit lens

price paid:

L240

positive:

edge to edge sharpness after f4.5

negative:

not sharp wide open

comment:

great landscape lens, fantastic with flare and focus, has never let me down.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Chickenhawk   review date: January-04-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony Alpha 100 Kit Lens

price paid:

L95 ex. display

positive:

Solid Build, sharp from f4, good colours

negative:

Lens cap is a pain with the petal hood on as it's virtually impossible to get on or off.

comment:

I wasn't intending to buy this lens but saw it in a Jessops closing down sale reduced from L315 to L95 ex.display, so got a bargain. Nice lens which hasn't disappointed.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Wayne   review date: December-24-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 17-70 kit lens
KM 17-35 D lens

price paid:

200USD

positive:

Very Sharp
Excellent contrast
Minolta colors
Solid build
Smooth focus and zoom

negative:

Flare is controlled, but the shallow hood limits angle to the sun
Does not have a distance window like the old Minolta lenses

comment:

Excellent wide to normal zoom for the money. Typical Sigma EX build (solid) with the hood and nice case included. Colors are very close to the old Minolta colors with excellent contrast. The images are very sharp, and print well. This is a good companion for your daily kit, especially for city and nature (landscapes) shots.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Hobgoblin   review date: August-04-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Kit Lens
Minolta 28 f2.8

price paid:

L115 used

positive:

Build
Colour
Feel

negative:

None really for the price

comment:

I like this lens, I wasn't sure if I would but I wanted something just a little wider than my Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG and this came up. I need the extra width because some of my work entails taking pictures in confined spaces but where fisheyes wouldn't be acceptable.
The 17-35 range equates to 25-52 in 35mm terms which means it covers what used to be considered the two best prime lengths (28 and 50) for 'normal' use.
Its very sharp when stopped down beyond 5.6 and more than acceptable from f4. Sharpness is much better than the kit especially at the widest end and if it softens up a little towards 35mm its not really a problem because of the overlap with the 24-70.
Colour is really nice and vivid - maybe a little too much at times but that is easier to adjust in PP than flat washed out colour.
I'm really looking forward to trying this out on some landscape work.
Overall this is a good piece of glass that will always be in my bag and which I expect will spend a lot of time on my camera. I will be giving it a run out as well on one of my film bodies just to satisfy my curiousity since I've never actually used a lens wider than 28mm in full frame.
Sigma's EX DG range has some very nice lenses and should do a lot to dispel the bad name that Sigma seems to have collected.

sharpness: 2.5 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: paulobro   review date: September-05-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 18-200

positive:

Well built
Fast, precise autofocus

negative:

Very soft, low contrast
Flares easily with lateral light

comment:

First of all I was surprised the Minolta/Pentax version of this lens — just like Sigma 10-20 — is built quite differently than the USM versions.

The focus ring does turn on autofocus and on manual I found its action a bit loose on my copy, if still useable enough. The front element doesn't turn, neither on focus nor zooming, and accepts a petal shade — not really sufficient but still necessary, for flaring CAN indeed be a problem with lateral light.


The lens is well built, looks and feels solid. Autofocus is very fast and quite precise on my D5. There's noticeable but acceptable barrel distortion at 17mm, that turns almost flat by 35mm. Luminosity decreases quite steeply with zooming: 17mm/2.8 - 18mm/3.2 - 23mm/3.5 - 28mm/4. It seems to me its colors turn just a bit warmer than natural, perhaps with some yellow cast, but no real concern. Sharpness and contrast are its weak points; wide open at any lenght it is soft indeed; it's markedly better from f/5.6 up but never gets to be really, 3D sharp. Interestingly it seems sharper the shorter it's set. Images respond quite well to post processing though.