Covers the most used wide-angle range

Sigma mechanics suck Dust gets inside the lens I can´t afford such vagueties in a lens

Bought it since the Original Nikkors are so expensive... actually it would have been cheaper to buy a Nikkor straightaway... The lens seemed ok and it actually is very good... and on the other hand not. Yes, it´s sharp when you happen to get there with F/8.. f/11, but working with 17-20 mm and f/5.6 shooting snowboarding, the results suck. For such a lens, f/5.6 should a piece of cake and is allready a compromise in shutter speed for the photographer. I´m not expecting top performance @ f/2.8 but 5.6 @ 17-20 mm is nothing special asked. It feels to me that the DOF is not planar, instead curved somehow making the image sharp in the center @ 2m...infinity but unsharp still 5-6 mm from the edges on the whole 3 m...-> infinity range. The autofocus is far from a Nikon AF-S. The Nikon "D" function chip is not working as well as on a original Nikon giving sometimes stupid metering results. My old Nikon f/2.8 35-70 beats the hell out of this lens @ 35 mm giving faultlessly crisp images from f/4 on beating the Sigma clearly in both contrast and sharpness. Also with Nikkors, I have never had to have the lens cleaned of dust from the inside, rather from the outside... After this experience I start to follow the old wisdom of allways buying the best possible optics available. Good optics are allways good, whatever body - digital or film - you attach behind the lens. Don´t buy at all if you "cannnot afford it".

Customer Service

Anyone shooting +100 rolls per year should take care that his contacts to the supplier are ok thus securing good service. No problems despite hinterland location...

Similar Products Used:

Nikkor AF-S 17-35, 35-70, AF-S 80-200, AF-I 300...

Price

Unacceptable Sigma quality control. Filter size is not for kids.

Actually I deal with two lenses. First one was great optically (very sharp and without heavy distortions), but at 24mm zoom position autofocus was failed (some mechanical problem inside the lens). So I swap this lens to another. When I tested it again the autofocus was fine but I was surprised an unacceptable picture quality (the lack of sharpness even at small size photos). I sold it and now thinking about new Canon 16-35L.

Customer Service

Poor in Russia

Similar Products Used:

Tokina 19-35, Canon 24-85.

Sharp lens when stopped down below f5.6

Some distortion at 17mm but this is to be expected

At 17mm Soft f2.8-4.0 Very Sharp f5.6-16 Some distortion Min. Flare

Customer Service

None

Similar Products Used:

None

Sharpness, even at edges using aperatures 11-16.

None so

This lens serves me well. I used this lens to photograph the Eiffel Tower, in total darkness, using a tripod. I also used this lens in the French Alps to photograph a waterfall -- also that I blew up 20x16". Everyone that saw this picture asked for the negative -- I subsequently blew the picture to 16x20 -- and it is sharp at edges. Lets be honest, at 17-19mm, DOF is critical. Therefore, if you don''t approach an schene head-on, then you might experince softness in one corner but not the other. Get your hands on a DOF chart and thumb down to 17mm and observe how shallow the DOF becomes. I use this lens on a tripod which allows me to close down to 1/16 aperature. If you alsomhave a tripod and allow yourself longer shutter speeds, then I strongly recommend this lens. When I open the aperature to 2.8, the edges become soft -- but remember how critical the DOF becomes -- if you look at edges at 2.8, make sure that you don''t compare side-backgrounds at a longer distance -- it needs to be a large object filling the frame to compare at 2.8.

Customer Service

None so far

Similar Products Used:

Tokina 28-80 ATX Pro Pentax 50mm 1.7 Sigma 15mm Fisheye

light-weight, wide, 2.8 (to some extent), and it takes sharp photos

you can''t overide the autofocus

This lens has treated me very well. As a High School Journalist it has givin the edge in the high school photo contests I have been entering. The only thing I don''t like about it is it says that it is 2.8-4 (understandable for the price) but it is only 2.8 from 17mm-20mm, and that really isn''t very good. Other than that it one of my favorites!

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

28-80 canon, 19-35 tamron

Price, construction, Sigma reputation for (EX series) quality. Scalloped hood and nice cordura case included.

Slow and sometimes inaccurate focusing. Considerable edge distortion in extremes. 82mm filter size.

This is a very decent lens for the money. I also use a Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM, and it is about the finest lens I own, Nikkors notwithstanding. Regrettably, I wasn''t able to get the HSM version of this lens for my Nikon AF at the time of purchase which is a disappointment. It is a little weak in the AF department. It does okay albeit slow on my F100, and worse on my N80 backup. It occasionally won''t focus at all on the N80 without much "re-AFing". It is quite sharp and contrasty at f4 to f11 in anything but 17mm, but suffers quite a bit wide open in all focal lengths. Noticable edge distortion, but not showstopping. It is not one of my most used lenses, and I can''t justify the additional $1000 for the Nikkor AF-S version. I''ll use my far, far supereior Nikkor 20mm 2.8 when I need a wide angle. I don''t use this lens on important assignments, but it is quite acceptable for personal work. Relatively speaking, it a great value for the money, and I''ll continue to buy Sigma lenses in spite of this somewhat below average offering.

Customer Service

Phone only as yet. Polite, Knowledgeable, and Helpful.

Similar Products Used:

Several WA Nikkor primes.

Very good focal range; good quality

Filter thread size

Good quality fun lens, but not all that practical. Prior to purchasing this lens I had a Sigma 24mm f2.8 lens, which ended up being my favorite lens. As I take a lot of landscape pictures, and like the perspective warping abilities of wide angle lens, I purchased this lens. I’ve had great quality pictures from this lens, and certainly find the range of moderate wide angle of 35mm to very wide angle of 17mm a very useful range. However, this lens has not replaced by Sigma 24mm lens as my favorite, and the reason is the difficulty of using filters with this lens. The 82mm filter thread size is extreme, and filters are very expensive. I have a Cokin P type system that I use for graduated ND filters, 81A, CPL etc, but adding this on to the lens reduces the usable focal length to around 22mm due to vinegration at wider angles.

Customer Service

not needed

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 24mm f2.8 Tamron 75-300 Nikon 35-80 Nikon E 28mm f2.8

Zoom range, price.

Some softness at edges

Love the range and for the price a nice lens. Bought it because I was on budget. I agree: edges are soft at 17-19mm range. Overall, a nice lens considering price

Similar Products Used:

None

Price, focal range.

Weak at the adges. The field curvature is abysmal at the wide end. And what''s worse, is it''s not even at both sides. While the left side was focused, the right side was not.

Fine resolution at the center but very soft at the corners. I have replaced it with Sigma''s new 20mm 1.8 and it''s a great lens. You can get better performance from Tokina 19-35 / Soligor which cost much less.

Similar Products Used:

Tokina 19-35, Sigma 20mm 1.8

ultra-wide to semi-wide with and very sharp even at 17mm corners, slight distortion can make for cool effects.
I like the small aperature at f45.
Very light weight

not a constant 2.8

Great lense, even better buy. A must get for wide angle photography

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

sigma 24mm 2.8
canon 20-35 3.5