Amadeus Loc: New York

Thinking about purchasing this lens for my Canon 80D. Only negative reviews I see, and there’s a few, are AF problems on Nikon cameras. Does anyone have experience with this lens or know about this problem? Thanks in advance for any comments.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...negative reviews... AF problems on Nikon cameras..."

Amadeus while I don't have that particular lens I do have the AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma (wt: 629 grams) Announced: 3 - 2010 takes 77 mm filters and focuses down to 0.9 feet. It's the Nikon variant and is one of the finest optics in my kit.

Shoot it on a D7200 and it is absolutely stellar. Only required a minor Auto Fine Tune adjustment and it's OS is more than equal to Nikon's VR of the same era.

What is it's down side? The focus rings turns even when in AF which can be an issue at first albeit it certain hasn't bothered me. The second issue is weight, at 629 grams i.e. 1.4 lbs it is a massive piece of glass for an APS-C camera such as the Canon 7D Mark II (and the Nikon D7200).

But don't take my word here, study the image below which was taken with the AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma on a Nikon F7200. Love this lens!

That said since the lens you're considering is compatible with the optional Sigma USB Dock for fine-tuning AF and other lens characteristics I honestly believe that "End User" lack of expertise may be the reason for poor reviews... Just a thought...

Hope this helps Amadeus...

Camera Used: Nikon D7200; 1/320 sec; F/8; ISO: 2200; Auto WB Lens: Sigma 17-50mm AF f/2.8, DC, OS, EX, HSM, FL 40mm (60mm Angle of view on FX); Illumination: Speedlight: Nikon SB700 (bounced)

(Download)

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

There was a focus issue with this lens on Nikon bodies??? I must have been lucky.

Amadeus Loc: New York

I saw a few reviews in B&H that mentioned it. I’ve never owned glass outside of Canon. This lens was recommended by a guy at mpb. It appears to be a nice lens. More than I was looking to spend. I was considering the Canon 17-40L. But I’m glad you had no issues.

irishrover61 Loc: Miami, FL

I have this lens on use it on a Canon m50 Mark II with a EF to EOS M adapter and it is stellar. Not only from a focusing standpoint but optically as well.

(Download)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

It is the sharpest zoom lens I've ever owned. It is sharp not only in the center but at the edges as well. It us like owning a bag of fast prime lenses. At f/1.8 it is a little softer than when it stopped down. It reaches maximum sharpness at f4

The autofocus inconsistencies happen more frequently when the lens is used wide open.at f/1.8. At f/2 the inconsistencies happen less often. And by f/2.8 the AF inconsistencies are relatively rare. I also find the focus issues occur most often when shooting at a subject that's very close.

The problem occurs more often with low contrast subjects than with high contrast ones, especially in lower light. In those circumstances I find that if I focus on the spot where the low and the high contrast areas meet I get far fewer AF issues.

Whether you can live with those inconsistencies I cannot say. Keep in mind that this lens is built like a tank. It is big, and at almost 30 ounces, it is heavy.

Amadeus Loc: New York

Sorry can’t seem to figure out “quote reply” but do you shoot with a Nikon or other brand? I do want to use it in low light conditions. Gymnastics, dance recitals etc. The AF would be a major consideration.

rdemarco52 Loc: Wantagh, NY

I have the Canon 17-40L and it is a teriffic lens. And I purchased it from MPB.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Not only is it an excellent lens (even though an older design), but they’re dirt cheap at the moment. Last I looked a few weeks ago, Canon had them in the $400 range, plus it’s not especially large or heavy. The possible downside is it’s an f4, but you have to ask yourself when you’ll need a wide angle lens where there’s not plenty of light (outdoors) or where you can’t use a flash indoors. another good alternative is the newer 16-35 f4L, which while more expensive, has IS. There’s also the 16-35 f2.8L if you really feel the need for speed in a wide angle lens.

User ID

If the “Nikon bodies” problem is/was real, do consider that “Nikon bodies” is a broadly vague spec. Your “luck”, if indeed it’s luck, is most likely in owning the Nikon model you happen to own. Some models have more capable AF than others, allowing those models to AF a lens that is too difficult for lesser models.

An example is my use of adapted EF lenses on Sonys. The a7III and a6500 can handle almost any EF lens. The older models are more “selective” about which EF lenses will AF usefully, or at all.

Acoarst, never buy any tech that you cannot readily return to vendor. You can ask this crowd for opinions, and you WILL get your money’s worth, so choose your vendor carefully.

Amadeus Loc: New York

I appreciate all the input. My camera is a Canon 80D and just wondered if it was a widespread problem with the lens. I was attracted to it because of the wide aperture. I would be using it indoors, poor lighting and no flash. So I shied away from the canon 17-40. It seems like the only drawback to the lens is it’s massive weight.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I use my Sigma 18-35mm on a Canon 7D Mark II. It has always been my understanding that the AF issues are more prevalent with Canon cameras than with Nikon cameras. As I indicated earlier, AF issues are more common when you shoot wide open at f/1.8. There is a bit of a learning curve needed to understand how to get around the autofocus issues. Even though it can occasionally be annoying, I've never regretted buying this lens.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...I do want to use it in low light conditions. Gymnastics, dance recitals etc..." Amadeus there are precious few genres where equipment trumps even skill and expertise... Sadly indoor sports; gymnastics, dance etc is one of those very rare scenarios. The barrier to entry in professional caliber indoor sports photography often can be very deep pockets. If you want to shoot commercially in that genre it may take years to recover your initial investment, if at all.

I'm only the messenger here Amadeus; that said I shoot League Soccer commercially and when clients ask if I would accept indoor sports assignments I politely decline... virtually a bottomless pit of low paying gigs and gaining credentials to shoot at major college events (let alone major league events) is nearly impossible (the line goes around the block).

My best suggestion for you is to invest quality time in the UHH Sport's Photography Forum.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-103-1.html

Now that I better understand your initial query on the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 optic I realize your actual requirement i.e. "need" is greater then a single piece of kit. Please do yourself a favor and hang around in the UHH Short's Photography Forum for several months and then possibly reevaluate your situation. While there are many genres... you kind sir are looking to pursue one of the most complex and demanding of all. Not only do you have to have a high degree of knowledge and savvy in Dance and Gymnastics but also the highly sophisticated kit to achieve excellence.

Keep in mind that photographic excellence is not a consumer commodity but rather a result of long and arduous dedication to a craft.

Please realize that I'm not trying to discourage your choice of genre but rather attempting to steer you in the right direction.

Wishing you all the best on your photographic journey Amadeus

Amadeus Loc: New York

That’s a little disconcerting to me. I intend to use it indoors. I use BBF in servo because I’m following motion. The AF issue you describe would make it difficult to follow action and maintain focus. :(

Amadeus Loc: New York

Thank you for that. I didn’t know there was a separate sports forum. And I will check it out.