Sigma 15-30mm Lens for Canon EOS 10D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dave.US, Aug 30, 2003.

  1. Dave.US

    Dave.US Guest

    Does anyone have experience with the Sigma 15-30 AF lens on a Canon
    EOS 10D? I got the 10D a month ago and am using it with a Sigma
    28-300 lens and would like something with a bit wider angle.

    Any idea where to get this lens for the best deal? I'd like to stay
    under $500.

    Thanks,
    Dave
     
    Dave.US, Aug 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dave.US

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Yes I've got one..

    I'm a Canon snob.. All my lenses were Canon.. I don't shoot wide angle
    that much, so I scrimped and bought the Sigma 15-30 for my wide angle lens
    since I wouldn't be using it much.

    It really is a good lens. It's a bit heavy, but it takes sharp and bright
    pictures. I'm petty happy with it.

    No idea where you can get a better deal than Adorama or B&H.

    http://www.pbase.com/jim_townsend/sigma_15_30mm_samples
     
    Jim Townsend, Aug 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dave.US

    Nils Rostedt Guest

    I think the above pretty well sums up the numerous reports I've browsed
    regarding this lens. I also have a 10D and just ordered this lens.

    Nothing is perfect of course. Some users don't like the focus/lock mechanism
    which they feel is a bit clumsy. It takes only internal filters, which is
    somewhat awkward if you use them. And I believe some may have had slight
    complaints about corner sharpness when used on a film or full-frame body,
    but that's not an issue for the 10D. I don't recall seeing any posts
    condemning this lens, so to me it seems a fairly safe choice. I'm looking
    forward to use the 30 cm closest focus distance, which is pretty good.
    Anyway this is more or less the only existing decently priced option if you
    want a 24mm equivalent wide-angle zoom for a Canon DSLR. /Nils
     
    Nils Rostedt, Aug 30, 2003
    #3
  4. Dave.US

    Lisa Horton Guest

    I have this lens, and have been using it extensively. It's pretty
    sharp, pretty good, pretty cheap compared to the alternatives. There is
    slight barrel distortion at the long end, but it's very little compared
    to cheaper ultrawide zooms. It will have to do until I can afford the
    16-35L lens. I never thought I'd regard a $500 lens as a cheap
    substitute...

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Aug 30, 2003
    #4
  5. Dave.US

    Scott Elliot Guest

    I was going to buy the Sigma 15-30, but at the shop they had just received a
    Canon 17-40 just after it came out. I didn't shoot any comparison shots,
    but after mounting both lenses on a 10D and comparing handling I chose the
    Canon 17-40. I cost a little more, but has full time manual override, USM
    autofocus and uses the same 77 mm filters that I already have for other
    Canon lenses use. I have been very happy with results from the Canon 17-40,
    but would probably have been happy with the Sigma 15-30 too.

    Scott Elliot
    http://www3.telus.net/selliot/
     
    Scott Elliot, Aug 31, 2003
    #5
  6. Dave.US

    wally Guest

    Maybe so, but it won't get you to 24mm equiv field of view.

    25.5mm is not really "close" to 24mm field of view, unlike of 80mm vs 85m
    which is pretty much not worth argueing about.

    --wally.
     
    wally, Aug 31, 2003
    #6
  7. Dave.US

    Brian Z Guest

    Did you mean 27.2 instead of 25.5?


     
    Brian Z, Aug 31, 2003
    #7
  8. Dave.US

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Scott, I'd considered the Canon 17-40. The USM and 77mm filters are
    real plus points. But in the end, I needed as wide as I could get. The
    only other lens I would seriously consider would be the 16-35L, and
    that's out of my price range right now.

    Perhaps I should mention that I don't actually LIKE ultrawides, and
    rarely use them apart from assignments that require them.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Sep 1, 2003
    #8
  9. Grumph. 15 x 1.6 = 24mm. That's not even wide, that's barely a normal lens.
    It's a reasonable compromise between human perception (i.e. what you can see
    without moving your head when you walk into a room or other space (well over
    90 degrees horizontally)) and the difficulty of avoiding distortion with
    wider lenses.

    Now 17mm (on a full-frame camera), being the longest lens that captures more
    than 90 degrees horizontally, is just beginning to get interesting.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 1, 2003
    #9
  10. Dave.US

    Lisa Horton Guest

    This would of course explain my indifference to and your resentment of
    the 1.6 crop factor :)

    It is ironically funny though, that I would end up doing work in digital
    that requires a wide angle.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Sep 1, 2003
    #10
  11. Dave.US

    wally Guest

    Probably. Not having a 10D I don't know what the "multipler" is, I used 1.5X
    when 1.6X is probalby closer after reading some reviews.

    --wally.
     
    wally, Sep 1, 2003
    #11
  12. Dave.US

    Jim Townsend Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:


    I have a trip booked in October.. I'm heading north to photograph wild polar
    bears..

    I imagine getting a full frame shot of a 500kg (1100lb) carnivore with a 17mm
    lens would be very interesting indeed :)
     
    Jim Townsend, Sep 1, 2003
    #12
  13. Dave.US

    dslr Guest

    He also had his D60 eaten by a hyena ;-)
     
    dslr, Sep 4, 2003
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.