David Naylor

Thanks for the details. I'd really like to see this tested by Lensrentals.com too with a comparison vs a few other lenses. I just find it a little strange that this hasn't been noted anywhere else,...

In fact, none of the previous reviews I have read have mentioned any AF issues.

Wow, this "AF issue" is being blown completely out of proportion. I've had this lens for over a month now and haven't had even the slightest indication that there is anything wrong with the AF. If...

I own the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 IS, and two more lenses.

I don't find the Sigma's autofocus to be any more reliable or unreliable than any other...

This is something I have asked myself too... The 50s seem to be lagging behind. Hoping both Canon and Sigma release new improved versions of their respective 50/1.4.

Have you had a look at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8? Since most standard zooms start at 17 or 18mm, you might get along without the 17-20mm range on your UWA. I got the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 a few...

Sorry, I don't know what happened there. Here they are again (hopefully): The Milky Way as seen from Sweden. The Milky Way as seen from Sweden.

Sorry bout that ... =) The Sigma really is unbelievably good at 18mm.

Yeah ... It's almost like no-one has really tried before!

Oh, I forgot. Here are two shots of the Milky Way from the other night. This lens is great for astrophotography since it is sharp wide open, especially at 18mm. I've always wanted a lens in the...

If you think of it as a standard zoom lens, it is fairly limited in range. I owned the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, the Sigma 30/1.4 and the Canon 50/1.4. I was feeling disappointed with the IQ of the 30mm...

The Digital Picture has test images with the Sigma 18-35mm. Here's a rather revealing comparison between the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS at 17mm and the Sigma at 18mm. Both at their widest...

I have had this lens (with my 7D) for six months or so and really like it. From the reviews I read before I got it I understand it is pretty much as sharp as the legendary Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS...

+1. Ignore the ignorant responses.

Thanks, I'll check him out.

Good point about astrophotography. You have inspired me to have a go with the tripod some night soon.

Well, I don't know. I see it as a great replacement for my 30mm f/1.4 prime (which doesn't have IS either) so I never felt I missed it.

Very good points. This discussion is similar in some ways to the myth that "lens x outresolves camera y". Or "much better to invest in glass than in camera bodies, they hold their value better"....

I feel your frustration! Once you decide on getting something, you really want it yesterday. =)

If you compare them on the same (APS-C) camera, the Sigma scores 15 for sharpness, the f/2 IS scores 14 and the old f/2 scores 11.