As Bill Gillooly once said, > That Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 has sounded good, but I'm not sure I'm > going to want to be buying anything from Sigma just yet.
I bought one (before the 20D, 300D and all the EF-S nonsense came out) and it's been pretty decent. At the time though, I had a 10D and my widest lens was a 28-135 IS. Apparently the lens is not as sharp in the corners as say, the 15-30, but it's not to say you can't take some pretty nice pictures with it anyway, as long as it's not wide open. >From Michael Reichmann's review, and various other comments I've read it sounds like the quality control on this lens at least is very hit and miss, and you may get a good specimen, or you might not at all. I haven't done any extreme testing of my lenses to see what they're made of, but since the end result (pictures) are really what dictates things, then it doesn't matter if an F/16 exposure on a tripod will look fantastic or not, if I never ever shoot the lens that way :) I've thought more than once that my lens (or camera) had gone to pot after viewing a particularly bad series of shots I've taken, only to end up chalking it up to bad luck + poor technique later. > Too bad Canon chose to go the EF-S route with the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM! Since I have a 20D, I'm quite happy that they came out with the 17-85 IS. Makes a much better all-around lens than the 28-135 on 1.6x bodies. I still miss the extra zoom sometimes, but with the 12-24 and 70-200, the three make a usable set. > Mr. Bill -/\/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
