# Sigma 17-50 2.8



## kdsand (Mar 8, 2012)

After several hours shooting I am thinking I have a good copy.
Based on many reviews the lens often had certain issues such as poor QC.
Perhaps all issues have been hammered out. If so with the current rebate perhaps this is a good value alternative to Canon. 

Did I just luck out or has there been overall improvement?


----------



## kdsand (Mar 9, 2012)

Good lord I'm talking to myself....
1 funny thing that I ran across in review after review was how this lens hood was strangely loose and would even fall off. That did strike me as being odd even before I receive my own copy. Come on a simple piece of plastic like a lens hood should be relatively easy to keep good quality control over.

Well anyways wouldn't you know it this copy feels loose. If you look closely at the molding it is obviously very good and high quality so that begs the question what the heck is going on?

Well what is going on is it a good design. When the hood feels like it's in place you give it a little extra twist - perhaps a bit more force than you might expect to exert. When you do this the sucker is locked in tight and it fits like a glove not even the slightest little wiggle. There is not even the slightest possibility it will fall off by accident. Is actually seems more secure than my Canon hoods.

This is been a public service announcement.
;D


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 10, 2012)

Did they throw in the hood for free? That would be a nice change vs. Mother Canon.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 10, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Did they throw in the hood for free? That would be a nice change vs. Mother Canon.



Oh yes. Free.
Canon not providing lens hoods like a running joke albeit it a bad joke. :
Just 1 of the universe's many mysteries.

The lens also came in a very nice serviceable fitted nylon case. Most likely the lense will stay in my shoulder bag but at the very least it was very protected during shipping.


----------

