Solid construction.

Poor optics. Overpriced.

The build is probably the only thing great in this lens. My sample which was borrowed, used to AF pretty fast on my EOS-3 but hunt at times, under the same light conditions and same subject. Strange. Optics were so-so. COlor rendition was very good but extremely warm. Distortion was well controlled. However sharpness was not as good as the Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5 zoom, and edge sharpness and definition were pathetic. It's probably useable on a DSLR but absolutely not on a film camera. As expected it was soft wide open, but only became a little sharper at f/8. Far too slow for available light work. The AF/MF switching is a thoroughly stupid design and is a pain to switch. After using this lens for a while I returned it. It wasn't a good enough performer by my standards. I'd say it's overpriced for what it delivers.

Customer Service

Not needed. Returned the lens.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5, 17-35/2.8, Canon 15/2.8 fisheye, Canon 20/2.8.

- Robust feel - Fast focus - Ultra Wide Focal Lenghts (24-48mm on EOS 10D) - Price - Good to Great sharpness at 15mm - Short focus distance

- A little heavy - Not as tack sharp as Canon at all focal lengths (20mm-25mm) - Noisy focus system (sounds like geartrain noise)

Well I debated between the Canon 17-40 f4L and this Sigma 15-30. My camera body is an EOS 10D. I wanted to purchase from a local shop rather than online not only to support our local shops, but also so I could test the lens I actually was to purchase. I shot many un-scientific comparison photos at my local shops with both lenses and essentially learned the following: - At wide open aperature and widest zoom, the Canon is slightly sharper across the frame, and focuses more accurately than does the Sigma although you have to look for it. - One must be very careful with shutter speed! The lens is only as good as the photographer using it! I almost made the mistake of basing my conclusions of sharpness on some blurred images due to camera shake. You MUST use a tripod for the sharpest images (Duh!) - The Sigma produces warmer tones than the Canon. I wouldn't call the Canon "cold" but rather more neutral. - Both lenses are well built, although the Sigma feels more robust, primarily due to it's weight and size. The Sigma is a "sexier" lens on the camera, if that matters to you! - The Sigma focus motor is noisy, although lightning fast. The Canon focuses without you even knowing though and is quite impressive. - Surprisingly, the Canon shows chromatic aberration in it's widest focal length where the Sigma did not. There is a fringing around bright lights or sources of bright light. The Sigma I have shows none of this fringe. - Close focusing distances on both lenses are wonderfull! - The Sigma will not allow use of the Canon 10D built-in flash, the Canon lens might but I did not test it. So what to choose? I choose the Sigma. I couldn't justify the price increase ($200) to purchase the Canon lens. I was nervous about the CA I noticed in my shots as that was more annoying than any lack of sharpness. My only regret is that the Sigma does not have a better focusing system, the Canon is so simple and clean (and quiet!) So after going through all the reviews I could find on-line (since the people at the local shops had no real subjective information to pass along!) this is what I have to report, hope it helps...

Customer Service

I had the 28-105 Sigma sent in for the software update to allow functionality on the digital bodies. One week turnaround! Not bad!

Similar Products Used:

28-105 2.8-4 Sigma 19-35 3.5-4.5 Tokina (what this replaced) 70-210 f4 Canon 75-300 IS Canon 35-135 3.5-4.5 Sigma 600mm f8 Sigma

wide angle. that's the only strength if you can tolerate soft image.

soft image and filmsy builde. if that is what you get when you pay S$900!

less than what i expected from SIGMA. this is my very first sigma lens. I expected sharp and high contrast pic as I heard abt many great comments on SIGMA 70-200 F2.8. However, this SIGMA 15-30 truly let me down. very filmy build. very soft image. totally unacceptable. in the view finder (EOS 10D), the colour appears to be yellowish. the pic is soft even at f8. the paint at the hood comes off easily. the selling price does not match its performance. With a couple more bucks, you can get EF 17 40 L! I am regret buying this lens. I'd need to buy EF 17-40L soon.

Customer Service

canon SIngapore provides efficient and friendly service

Similar Products Used:

EF 200 f2.8L (really sharp and great!) EF 85 f1.8 (sharp but not as good as EF 200 f2.8L) EF 28-135 IS great! but not wide for EOS D

Colour balance, and versatile /usefull 15 mm on the Digital SLRs (crop factor x1,6)

Hm clumsy and not so sharp

Hmm i expected more from exactly this model and i must admit that looking at the shots i got,im not so impressed,even compared with the cheap Canon 18-55 Efs optic,the difference is not enormous,especially when you think of the price!? only at F8 or so the sharpness is reasonable,still the colours is a little better than Canon EFs 18-55. I Tried to make macro;but i didnt succeed as good as with the 18-55.

Customer Service

None needed

Similar Products Used:

Canon EFs18-55,Canon USM 17-40,Vivitar 17-28 mm Canon 16-35 and others..

Decent build Looks "pro"

Soft, especially compared to my 16-35 and 17-40 Canons. Selling the 17-40, anyone interested? =) Say goodbye to filters Bulbous (spelling?) front element is VERY vulnerable Vignetting up to 18mm Big and heavy Noisy **FLARE** No weathersealing

Bought this first for landscapes. Later I saw the light with Canon. No comparison to 16-35 or the 17-40. Only decent at f8 and smaller. Get the Canon L's. Don't be as stupid as me and start with a cheapo lens.

Customer Service

Wasn't needed. I've heard that it is pretty good.

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 19-35 Canon 16-35 and 17-40 Primes from Voigtlaender and leica. I quess these spoiled me.

not expensive, sharp, wide for digital, very wide for film.

heavy, big, noisy (very)

I use this lens with the Canon EOS 10 (x1.6). Gives me a 24-48 35mm equivalent, which is not bad consedreing the big "crop" factor. It is very big and heavy, so it is not easy carrying it around . When you take the camera out with that lens, everybody looks at you... not very discrete. It is quite noisy; doesn't matter for landscape photography, but when you want to take discrete photographs it's quite difficult. It is VERY wide, espacially when you use 35mm cameras. When you want a very wide angle of view, take a film camera with you, it's amazing.

Similar Products Used:

-

15mm!! Sturdy construction.

Noisy zoom! Redundant dual focus mechanism. Vignetting with a 82mm skylight filter.

After abusing my Sigma 17-35mm for over a year, I decided to switch over to the 15-30mm. I had a hard time deciding between this lens and the Canon 17-40mm f/4L but finally decided on the Sigma because I need the extra 2mm more than I need the constant f/4 on the Canon. First of all, the EX finishing makes the lens look good. I kept the adapter ring on the lens hood as I find it easier to just slap on the lens cap than having to remove the adapter ring every time. On my D60, the adapter ring does not cause vignetting. The focusing ring is large and comfortable to grip, whereas the zoom ring pales in comparison. The DOF scale is also a plus. I find the dual focusing mechanism redundant. Now instead of just flipping the switch from AF to M, I have to remember to slide the focusing barrel to M or be greeted by a horrendous grinding sound when attempting to focus manually. AF in low light condition is slow. I prefer focusing manually rather than let the lens hunt in the dark. At 15mm, the barrel distortion is quite minimal unless you have vertical lines at the edge. As most of my job with the 15-30mm involves photojournalism, the pictures turn out sharp enough for me. In summary, this lens is a good buy.

Customer Service

Not yet, and hopefully never have to.

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L

With another hood when use on a DSLR Nice lens case Sharp

This is my first Sigma lens, before that, I used to use only Nikkor lenses on my F5. I found this lens a great ultra wide zoom lens. Now, it becomes one of my "must bring" lenses all the times

Nice to have a wide angle zoom on my d-slr.

Sharpness is not very good(at least on my model). Looks like it has some front focus on my D30. Going to sendt it to Sigma, so they can check it.. The AF is soo loud, people will hear you focus a mile away..

Seems to be an okey lens.. But with som pros and cons.. Nice wide angle, AF is quite fast, but very noisy.. The hood a almost useless on 15mm..

Lightweight. Sharpness at wider focal lengths. Little distortion.

Large lens. Not very contrasty. Only average build.

This lens is rather large but is fairly lightweight. In terms of quality of build I would give it an average overall. The lens hood is not removeable and you can't put regular screw on filters on it. On my D100, it gives a nice 22.5mm view at 15mm. On a film camera the field is so wide you can just about see your feet if you shoot parallel to the ground. Sharpness is very good at around 15mm, but gets worse as it approaches 30mm. There is little to no rectilinear distortion. Contrast isn't that great however and it appears that in some cases it seems to overexpose. Others I have chatted with about this lens have also seen the overexposure problem.

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 20mm AF-D. Nikon 18-35mm AF-D.