Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had pretty much made up my mind to wait for the new 24mm
lens and
> skip the 16-45/4. And I'm still a likely purchaser of the 14.
But just
> an hour or two ago I ran across a Sigma 17-35 EX 2.8-4 on ebay
with a
> buy it now price of $229. That's half of what B&H gets for it
and about
> half of what I'd have to pay for the Pentax 16-45. Plus, I can
shoot
> with it on my LX or MX. The lens appears to be getting good
reviews and
> I figure it is probably good enough to meet my wide angle
needs for the
> time being. (Mainly automobile interiors and of course the
occasional
> landscap. But I still have my K 24/3.5).
Hi Paul,
A friend of mine uses the Canon version. He is quite happy wrt
general performance, but the lens seems to be prone to heavy
veiling flare under some lighting conditions (I'd add: that's
what I would expect from a Sigma wide angle zoom...). According
to the pictures I saw, the sharpness is very good (except maybe
wide open @ 17mm) and so is the colour rendition.
I think that for that price you cannot go wrong.
Ciao,
Gianfranco
=====
“To read is to travel without all the hassles of luggage.”
---Emilio Salgari (1863-1911)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com
