Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX (non-HSM)

After having all my camera equipment stolen in NY...my insurance did not pay for as much of it as I would have liked. I had a d60 and was forced to buy another wide-angle lens, but could not afford to buy another canon 17-35. I went with Sigma. There is a reason why this lens was a third of the price. It is the epitamy (spelled incorrectly?) of a crap lense. Major fall off, and for some reason or another, when used on the d60, the left side of picture was consistently blurry. Maybe the camera knew that it was crap lense, and refused to work. I had to apologize to my d60 for using that lense. My d60 talked to me in my dreams and told to sell the lense and so i did.

if you like your camera to talk to you....by all means, get the lense

read the review!!!!!! tooooooo many to list

canon 17-35....canon 16-35.....canon 17-40.....sigma 12-24

none

I'm not impressed with this lens, either its performance or its bulky size. While good optically until about 24mm, at larger focal lengths it becomes very soft, with very distinct resolution fall-off in the corners. Save your money and buy a 17-40L.