Support
You can support this site without any cost or disadvantage at all by clicking this link to Amazon or the one on the left before buying anything – be it underpants, a cupboard, a TV, a pen, a lens or a camera. Amazon is the only shop worldwide, I’m really satisfied with to a 100%, so I have no caveats advertising them. Of course, you can also directly donate a small amount of money, e.g. the amount you would have spent for a magazine, with the button on the left.
Sigma EX 17-35mm 1:2.8-4 HSM
An optically OK in general and very good for what-it-is ultrawide-zoom for "fullframe" with Sigmas first HSM - AF, which always breaks down.
Overall, this is very good ultrawide-lens, when you keep the alternatives in mind, I don't have a Nikon... It is a lot sharper in the corners than the 17-40L, even @f/2.8, but softer overall. It was not an option for me, I sold it after a few weeks, because it really only works with 82mm-filters, absolutely not with 77mm, my bigger standard, ones with step-down-ring, which alone already vignets heavily. Nonetheless it delivers ver good results, takes filters, has an at least mediocre distortion-characteristics, vignets a bit, is mediocre built, ... apart from the filters it would be completely OK for me, if I had no alternatives, but I have - for the same price with a matching filter-size.
I bought mine as part of a complete camera-equipment with film-body and bag over ebay. In fact, it was the reason to buy this lot, because I was curious about it's performance. Fortunately, I was able to sell all the stuff worth anything again, so that I have no loss, and have some additional filters now. When I got it, it turned out to be in very good condition but with a not-working AF-motor (HSM) and after searching the web a bit, this seems to happen to all of these over time. This first Version of Sigmas HSM simply seems to break down after a few years. And, OF COURSE, Sigma doesn't have spare-parts any more, which I never really expected, as Sigmas service is the worst I could ever imagine, but I at least tried ... again. Well, with an ultrawide it really is no problem to focus manually and even less so, as the focus-indicator in the finder works and the focus-points light when you got the right focus. In fact, I learned to focus this lens with one turn, which was faster than some AF-implementations of older lenses I own. Really. I strongly suggest, that you buy a sample with already broken AF, if you want one, as it will break down anyway and it makes the lens extremely cheap and it really isn't a problem.
There seems to be a newer version with a window for the focus-scale and fulltime-manual-focus-override, that hopefully is the same optically and has a longer-lasting HSM - motor AND takes 77mm-filters. I don't know this version, sadly, I'm really curious. Could be the only and maybe even better alternative to the 17-40L for a lower price.
COMPATIBILITY
As a classic EF - lens, it mounts on every EOS - body ever made, be it 35mm film, APS, digital APS-C or "fullframe". On APS-C, the smaller sensor of these cameras let's this lens have an angle of view like a 27-56mm-lens would have on 35mm, which, for me, seems too short on the long end to be versatile - I'd use a kit-lens instead.
Warning: There's always potential compatibility-issues with third-party lenses and newer bodies and this has happened to Sigma - products more than once in the past, so that I personally rate this risk as high. But keep the price in mind when judging this risk.
PRICE
Prices are very low for samples with broken HSM and a lot higher for good samples. Good samples sell for well above € 250,- today, but ones with broken AF don't get above € 60,- very often. Many samples look quite worn and scratched on the body, because Sigmas "EX" finish, despite from being their interpretation of "professional", isn't very durable.
ACCESSORIES
I didn't own the included shade. It was shipped with a pouch of very nice quality, but I didn't use it, because the lens is quite compact and fits in my normal bags.
You can use 82mm filters, but it doesn't work with a 77mm step-down-ring at 17mm and stacking two 82mm isn't possible, too. OK if your standard is 82mm, but not suitable for my 77mm.
The filter-thread does not rotate.
MECHANICS
Made in Japan.
Metal lens mount.
Mostly made of metal.
This is a Sigma - pro-grade - lens from the second era after they startet calling their expensive lenses "EX". It meets higher standards than the cheap models regarding materials, built-quality and tolerances, but is a lot cheaper made than the first EX-lenses like the 15-30mm and nowhere near Canons L-lenses. The finish is a problem. While not as nasty as the old rubber-style-coating that turns into glue over the years, it's still not very durable and gets ugly and tends to look worn when it scratches and comes off. You can scratch it off with a fingernail.
There seem to be some samples, but less so than of other Sigmas.
The lens is quite small and light.
I can't judge AF - speed, because mine was broken, but I assume it to be quite fast and silent, as it has an HSM-motor, even if not the ring-type of the best Canons (and Sigmas), but a micro-one.
AF accuracy, judged by the lighting indicator, is very good with my lens, nearly dead-on with all of my bodies. This is quite unusual for Sigma-lenses, especially for newer ones.
During automatic focussing, the focus ring turns.
The manual focus-ring feels flimsy and undamped. The front of the lens extends when zooming but doesn't turn when focussing.
Zoom-action is was a bit stiff, but smooth and very nice on my sample.
All in all a quite solid, but not professionally built body with a defective AF-motor.
ERGONOMICS
It feels light and small, but still quite solid. Size DOES matter, also see Lenses: What's important?. I hold it right intuitively, gripping it exactly right to zoom. The turning focus-ring would never get in the way of my fingers. The undamped MF feels a bit cheap.
You can hold a body with this lens in one hand. It fits in my usual bags.
The focus and manual focus rings are positioned really well. It has no instant manual override. To switch between AF and MF you have to turn a switch.
There is a focus-scale printed on the lens without infrared-focus-indices but with a depth-of-field-scale.
Overall: Good, but not great.
OPTICS
Optics of this Sigma are OK in abolute terms, but great in comparison, where the 17-40L is the only "affordable" alternative with a similar focal length, the 16-35 costs two or three times as much. And the 17-40L may have higher absolute sharpness, but the Sigma is worlds better in the corners and so in "uniformaty" over the frame. The Canon is always mush in the corners.
The minimum focus distance is 0.5m, which is OK for an ultrawide.
I expected distortion to be massive, because of the quite extreme 17mm, but surprisingly it is still quite OK. In fact it is worse than the 15-30mm, but OK for an ultrawide - maybe even better than the Canon 17-40L, at least not significantly worse. I didn't test this in-depth, but my test-shots seem to show quite uniform, easy to correct distortion-characteristics. It gets better in the middle and back to the same at 35mm, changing from barrel to pincushion, as expected.
The plane of focus is curved outwards, you have to focus closer to get the borders in best focus. This is quite common with ultrawides, but I find it annoying and the 17-40L is better ... what doesn't help the corners, which are simply bad.
Vignetting is bad at 17mm and f/2.8 and gets better at the other settings, as expected. This, to some degree, is a purely physical problem with a fullframe-sensor. At 17mm wide open, it might be nearly 3 stops darker in the corners, with a quite strong and hard drop off within the last few millimeters of the frame, and gets better with stopping down. Positive is, that most of the frame is quite evenly lit, so that this is not visible on APS-C.
The aperture is made of 8 blades, giving you very smooth out-of-focus highlights with not-so-great 8-ray-light-stars.
I have no information on this lens' usability for for infrared-photography, sorry.
While I think, that a lens less prone to flare and especially ghosting is not always better, as at least ghosts can be a very nice tool to show the lighting conditions in your pictures, this 17-35mm isn't overly prone to flare, but has quite a big and bulbed front-element, so has a higher possibility of catching light-reflexes, that other lenses have. Well, even when it flares, you do only get some greenish ghosts and the picture doesn't "glow out", making it unusable due to loosing contrast. Gladly, lamps, the moon, candles or similar light-sources in the dark aren't a problem and you can always avoid it by changing the angle a bit.
It's color reproduction seems to match my other Canon EF and third-party lenses. It does not have the little bit warmer overall cast, old Sigmas sometimes show.
Lateral CAs (purple/green fringes along high-contrast edges) are visible and can reach a width of above two pixels, I'd estimate. Not unsual for an ultrawide, but this has to be corrected in post-processing, otherwise it's very annoying.
Sharpness is one of the most overrated qualities of lenses. That being said, this lens quite sharp even at 17mm and f/2.8 and is so at nearly all other settings. But being "quite sharp" looks a little bit different than e.g. the 15-30mm or the Canon 17-40L: While these are very sharp over most of the frame at most settings, with a severe drop-off in the extreme corners, this Sigma 17-35, is extremely sharp in the center and a bit around it and then slowly fades to soft towards the image-borders. This, of course, gets better when stopping down and may not be breathtaking, but really OK. Zooming towards the long end detoriates the maximum sharpness a bit, but makes the overall image even more uniform: Better borders, but lower overall sharpness. I don't especially like this characteristics, because big areas of the image look comparitively soft, the 17-40L is a lot "snappier", but, of course, is completely useless in the corners. But thus kind of "softness" of the 17-35 does by far not mean mushy or really bad, but still soft. This, of course, would never be a real problem, as it is by far good enough to not be annoying, but it isn't a technical wonder, like the Nikon 14-24, either...
Here are some 100% crops from 21MP images from my 5D Mark II:
Extreme top right corner, 17mm f/2.8:
Extreme top right corner, 17mm f/8:
And to show you what I mean with the "slowly fading sharpness", here's a 100% crop at 17mm f/8 just left from the corner-crop above. So this is a crop from aprox. 60% to the right on the upper image-border:
Finally, to make it complete, this is from the same shot, a bit above the center:
And here's a different example, extreme top-left corner, indoors with a closer object, about 3.5m away, left 17mm f/2.8 and right f/8:
And to make it comparable to the 17-40L, here's a crop a comparison at 17mm f/4. be aware, that this is further away from the subject, the crop is also 100%, but only 400 instead of 470 pixels high, a minus of 15%, and even this "smaller" bottle is significantly sharper than f/2.8... and the 17-40L, of course:
My sample of this lens was centered well. Sigma seemed to have less problems with centering at that time, than they have today.
This lens is really OK optically and I'd have absolutely no caveats using it, if I had no alternatives. But I have. The Cosina 19-35mm - Versions, while being a bit less wide, are optically truly excellent, take 77mm filters, these filter-threads don't even turn in the Tokina and Tamron-versions and these lenses aren't any more expensive. So I see absolutely no reason to choose this Sigma, despite from the slightly wider angle.
Apart from that, I'm still really curious abou the newer version, but it seems to be over my price-range at the moment, with well over € 200,- used.
Alternatives
There are the usual alternatives and I would skip this one. The Cosina (Soligor, Vivitar, Tamron, Tokina, Bower, and so on) 19-35mm - lenses are a lot sharper and not significantly slower, as 2.8 vs. 3.5, resp. 4 vs. 4.5 is not a real difference. These don't have more distortion or vignetting and take 77mm - filters. I'd always skip on the 2mm on the wide end and buy one of these with working AF for the same price instead. The Canon 17-40mm is different, but not really better optically, maybe with a more pleasing characteristic, with an even more versatile zoom-range on the long end, a lot better built and also takes quite common 77mm filters, but costs about eight times as much. Again, the new version is tempting.
A word about supporting this site
I don’t run this site to earn money. I have a real job to earn my living with, a completely normal job. Since everything I write about here I have bought myself, for myself and with my own money from normal shops or ebay-sellers to actually use it, how much and what I am able to write about , depends on the amount of money that I can save and invest in equipment with good conscience. I share all this, because I want to, not to sell it. But when you find this helpful, maybe even as helpful as buying a magazine or book, of course you can support me, if you want. Your benefit is, that you help me being able to afford things to write about here.
You can use the “Donate” – button on the left to directly send a small amount of money (or a big amount, if you insist). You don’t need a paypal account to do so, every method is possible. If you decide to donate 99 cents, I’m thankful for it, because 10 people being as kind as you, make one new filter tested! The default currency is US $, but it works well with € or nearly any other currency, too.
But even more simple and without any cost or other disadvantage at all it is, to simply use this link to Amazon (or the one on the left) before buying anything there. For you it’s exactly the same as going there directly by typing the web-adress in your browser, you just klick this link first! It doesn’t matter, what you buy or where in the world you buy it, be it underpants, a pen, a cupboard, a lens or a Leica M9, be it in Germany, the USA, the UK or Australia: Amazon’s servers simply realize, that you came there through the link on my page and I get a small percentage of anything you buy FROM THEM. There’s absolutely no cost or other disadvantage for you, Amazon simply pays for my “advertisement” through this. I originally didn’t want to ever do any advertising personally. But then I decided to break this rule for Amazon. I’m a completely satisfied customer and buy everything from them. It’s the only shop in the world I would personally and on my private basis really rate a complete 100% in every regard. They have perfect service, even do call you back, answer emails with real, personal writing, extremely fast delivery even on Christmas-day, always perfect and completely new items, are never considerably more expensive than the very cheapest internet-sellers, have an extremely fast refund-system without being picky or having ever displeased me in any way and sell every good I have ever wanted to buy. They work on a completely different level than any retailer I have ever tried, and deliver it directly to me, without robbing me time and money to drive to the city or mall. I wouldn’t advertise them, if I wasn’t convinced, that it is OK to do so.