Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro

[Nick_C]

yay! yeah im nice and warm :D

Now your just rubbing it in damn you! :p

[e r y k]

heyyoh Nick :) im looking to upgrade to the 5D soon hopefully, if not the 40D. aside from breaking the bank, is the 5D a good move? or would I be better off with the 40D?

I assume using the zeiss 135mm is much much easier on that camera?

[bckane]

Here mine, very sharp lens
http://st152.startlogic.com/~bckaneco/lightbox/eveready.jpg

[Minja]

Here is one from yesterday. Taken during night time, hand held. Some PP applied.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2031/2131251023_b125d7e8b9_b.jpg

[halesowenkid]

Hey Minja that's fantastic! ;)

[Fargo73]

Hi everybody

This is my first post (still reading the old ones, I'm at page 80 ;-) )
This is my Xmas greetings!
This (stupid) photo is made with my kit 18-55 (I have a brand new Canon 400D XTi), but I will soon upgrade to this fantastic Sigma 17-70 :D

The image can be seen here: http://picasaweb.google.com/cicicima/Xmas2007/photo#5147993695520383042

[Nick_C]

heyyoh Nick :) im looking to upgrade to the 5D soon hopefully, if not the 40D. aside from breaking the bank, is the 5D a good move? or would I be better off with the 40D?

I assume using the zeiss 135mm is much much easier on that camera?

Is the 5D a good move, hmm in one word "HELL YEAH" (ok thats 2 words but whos counting) :p

I wont beat around the bush & this might not be what 40D owners will say but I can honestly say the 5D is WELL worth the money in my view, I recently got to try a 40D & to be perfectly honest I felt it was merely a 30D with more features & improvements, nothing more! a recent mag review summed it up in their 40D review, "it lacks that wow factor" I agree!

Overall I have found every lens I have tried performs better when mounted on the 5D, AF accuracy on my 5D + 24-105 beats ANY 1.6x body I have used in the past, I can honestly say out of a full 4Gb card (400 pics or so) every single shot has the focus where I wanted it to be, a 100% keeper rate in terms of accuracy of focus, any other problems are due to me ;-)

Of course like me you would have to sell your 17-70 as its no good on the 5D, although you could keep your old body still.

Yes manual focus is a lot easier than any 1.6x body, due to the very large & bright viewfinder, its nice to actually be able to MF again ;-) im also using the standard focus screen, they do sell a better one which aids manual focus, but I couldnt comment on that as I have never tried it myself.

Of course everyone is different, some people prefer the 1.6x bodies, but for me I love the fact that lenses perform as intended & my images for the first time ever seem to have some life put into them, I cant put my finger on it but ask any 5D owner & they will tell you that 5D images just have a look about them.

If it were me I wouldnt hesitate in getting the 5D, its about the only real upgrade in my view & is about as good as it gets unless you want to pay a lot more & enter the real pro world but you then spend thousands easily.

[yup talon]

http://www.rdhphotos.com/Fresh/POTN/IMG_6946.JPG

40D
57mm
10sec
f8
ISO320

[Fargo73]

After reading all 120 pages of this thread and most of all looking at all the nice picture you posted, I ordered my Siggy on ebay this morning!
I can't look forward to have it ;)

[Medic85]

After reading all 120 pages of this thread and most of all looking at all the nice picture you posted, I ordered my Siggy on ebay this morning!
I can't look forward to have it ;)

Congrats! You'll be happy with it.

After using my 17-85 for a few months now, I regret selling the Sigma for it. The colors and saturation on the Sigma just beat out the Canon any day of the week. I did gain IS and USM but I'm beginning to question my motives:(

Back to the drawing board.

[willy b]

1http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/028bor.jpg

2http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/049bor.jpg

3http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/048bor.jpg

This lens is so bloody versatile, i love it!

[willy b]

4http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/020.jpg

5http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/026-1.jpg

6http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/030-1.jpg

7http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/040-3.jpg

[willy b]

Mmmm 17mm
8http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/124.jpg

Mmmm 17mm
9http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/102-1.jpg

Mmmmm 70mm
10http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/093-1.jpg

So Sharp!
11http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/129-2.jpg

12http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/119-1.jpg

[focuspocus]

Here's a couple of mine with this amazing lens !

[rcfury]

After hours upon hours looking through this thread, ive bit the bullet. I just got me one of these lens's. Should have it by next week.

[Dewpoint]

Here's another one to show some sharpness.

This is a Tasmanian Devil

http://enzo.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p693465706.jpg

[willy b]

Dam Dewpoint that is sharp!

[rcfury]

Yes that is amazing... I heard word about this lens from somewhere you wouldn't even think of, a Nissan 350z forum. So when ever I get my 350z ill have to take pictures of it. I dont even want to try it out on my 210k mile 95 civic, it may break the lens.

[Dewpoint]

And a wombat

http://enzo.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p1065014734.jpg

And another magnifecent creature. He was moving a bit and I cut off his ears.

http://enzo.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p724228624.jpg

One more, ISO 1600. It doesn't get much better when it's this high IMO.

http://enzo.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p733818421.jpg


Hope these are helping with the decisions.

[rohicks]

I have some more for you guys. (sorry for the overload in images i just haven't posted any up in a while)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/2132618148_1f14c91c29_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2270/2109782895_344737ac5d_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/2111290589_a073952b27_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2070/2131840953_1abd92b8c7_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2341/2110559744_f6f36c9caa_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/2109782853_9ed1c90904_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2353/2134161739_28968d0df6_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2132/2134941046_1d8daf8aa6_o.jpg

[rohicks]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2047/2134941398_05d6a85728_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2193/2131841119_f25c711125_o.jpg

[willy b]

Some nice shots there Ryan

[Dewpoint]

Dam Dewpoint that is sharp!

Luck and good light, well I think so. It's ISO 800 as well. It's a great lens when I get things right. :)

[willy b]

iso 800, wow! What body you using?

[rohicks]

Some nice shots there Ryan
thanks ;)

[shannyD]

Not sure what that white line is.
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/8224/img2623bq2.jpg
i live ten mins from that, ;)

[Dewpoint]

iso 800, wow! What body you using?

My ol trusty Xti or 400D for you over there. :)

[willy b]

1http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/004-4.jpg

2http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/011-1.jpg

3http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/024-2.jpg

4http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/043-3.jpg

5http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/050-2.jpg

Two in Black and White:

6http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/043bw.jpg

7http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/050bw-1.jpg

[rohicks]

This was a quick thrown together pano. i did with the sigma glass.
The seams are visible so don't hate on me (i will fix it later).
Some of Purdue's campus (Purdue's baseball field in front).
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/2161781864_dd475d6820_b.jpg
Bigger view ... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/2161781864_aff97456f7_o.jpg

A pond on purdue's golf course.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2087/2160983885_a9a4c0bdfa_b.jpg
For a bigger view ... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2087/2160983885_f37a7362fe_o.jpg

Same pond with a wider pano and color...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2184/2161783314_ec7c63d0fb_b.jpg
Larger version ... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2184/2161783314_611eab90c4_o.jpg

HDR of the pond...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2242/2160983377_f3dafbe1e5_o.jpg

[Fargo73]

I received my new 17-70 tonight :D
I hope the weather gets better the next days (it is snowy and rainy now :cry: ), so I can go get some pictures!
I made some brief tests, and my lens does not seem be afflicted by back or front focus issues. I will have to check it better with full light.

What I saw by now is that it surely sharper and with less CA than the kit lens I had.
Focusing is quite fast (and a little noisy too :rolleyes: ), but it sometimes hunts a lot in low light, mainly with reflective surfaces (I cannot focus a group of oranges!).

[handyhaver]

Works ok inside when the light is there. Brought it along to my daughters b-ball game over the holidays. Caught a few decent shots.

[Dorman]

Nice panos.

[Vitruvius]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2235/2167724580_921a453817.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/ntlemon/2167724580/)

[Fargo73]

Yesterday I took some photos.
Here are some of the lens itself, since I didn't find many on the net.

Compared to the Canon kit lens:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2023/2168396232_c9dbc51c8b_b.jpg
Then alone extended with hood:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2293/2165943909_a2c1954a28_b.jpg
And the superb metal mount:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2394/2165941787_67186d2f53_b.jpg
But I noticed that the distance scale seems to be misaligned, are yours similar to this?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2336/2165947495_8b0c0e4f55_b.jpg

Than I took some photos to flowers (indoor, poor light, no tripod).
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2311/2166750380_92651f770e_b.jpg
Here I noticed a small bug after I took the photo:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2056/2166745282_32810e1922_b.jpg
And this is a 100% crop (edited) of the bug:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/2167577195_3a9f090c05_o.jpg

But what I really love of this lens is the bokeh!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2063/2165934991_84f56e6f55_b.jpg

[Ospi]

garden shots:

http://ospi.smugmug.com/photos/239080008-O.jpg

http://ospi.smugmug.com/photos/239790792-O.jpg

http://ospi.smugmug.com/photos/239790897-O.jpg

[Pumped]

Ive been using this lens for a while now,
and while i find it takes some excellent photos, nice and sharp.. does anyone else have a problem with underexposure?

It seems like on an outing i get less keepers from this lens then i do from the kit lens.

[X-Warrior]

does anyone else have a problem with underexposure?

Not specifically with the lens... although it does appear that the 400D has a tendency to underexpose shots. Just compensate with 1/3 or 2/3 stops 'overexposure'. It's what I do standard :)

[mrw1004]

Ive been using this lens for a while now,
and while i find it takes some excellent photos, nice and sharp.. does anyone else have a problem with underexposure?

It seems like on an outing i get less keepers from this lens then i do from the kit lens.

I have it on a 400D as well and it can underexpose at times, but I have never worked out the circumstances, other than user error :rolleyes:. Do you shoot RAW? This at least gives you the oppertunity of adding up to 2ev more exposure and in most slightly underexposed situations will save the shot.

I have seen a number of people say they shoot with this camera always set to +2/3ev (and I guess then pull the exposure down a bit if required in RAW PP).

all the best

mw

[rohicks]

It all depends on the situation your in.

[Pumped]

Thanks for the replies, I generally dont shoot raw, depends the situation if im shooting a smaller number of photos i will shoot raw but as a general walk around/holiday photos it just makes the file sizes to big, although i did recently upgrade memory cards so i might start using RAW more often.

Ill try adjusting the exposure values to compensate as well

:) see how it goes, thanks

[msowsun]

But I noticed that the distance scale seems to be misaligned, are yours similar to this?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2336/2165947495_8b0c0e4f55_b.jpg



My distance scale numbers look the same as yours. They look fine to me.
What part seems misaligned to you?
Do you mean you think the "3" should be over the "1" ?

[Fargo73]

My distance scale numbers look the same as yours. They look fine to me.
What part seems misaligned to you?
Do you mean you think the "3" should be over the "1" ?

No, I think that the infinite symbol (not exactly the symbol, but the L shaped sign) should be alligned with the dot. Shouldn't it be like that?

[KimLeece]

No, I think that the infinite symbol (not exactly the symbol, but the L shaped sign) should be alligned with the dot. Shouldn't it be like that?
No. That's the positioning guide for putting on the lens hood. (The start point to align it correctly - similar to the lens mounting dots)
If you want to manually focus using the distance scale you align the distance to the long straight line on the lens barrel if I remember correctly.

[msowsun]

When I focus mine at 70mm to distant clouds, the "L" does line up with the dot. The infinity symbol is not aligned but I think most lenses will focus past infinity to allow for temperature variances.

What is a little puzzling is that at shorter focal lengths the distance scale shows as little as 7' when focussed to infinity :confused:

[msowsun]

No. That's the positioning guide for putting on the lens hood. (The start point to align it correctly - similar to the lens mounting dots)
If you want to manually focus using the distance scale you align the distance to the long straight line on the lens barrel if I remember correctly.

On my lens the dot and the line are the same position. I think the dot may serve a dual purpose because at 17mm you can't see the line.

[KimLeece]

On my lens the dot and the line are the same position. I think the dot may serve a dual purpose because at 17mm you can't see the line.
Now I'm home and can examine my lens more closely...you're right.
It's definitely for alignment as well....the arrow start position on the lens hood needs to be aligned with the dot. There's another white dot on the lens hood which puzzels me though, as it's not the final position the hood screws on to. On the lens itself though the dot and the barrel line are in the same place, as you say. I think that the "L" thing simply indicates where infinity focus starts, but it seems you can move it slightly past that - the infinity mark itself isn't in any particular place...one follows the "l" to the exact point. I could be wrong though.

[msowsun]

There's another white dot on the lens hood which puzzels me though, as it's not the final position the hood screws on to.

I believe that the white dot on the lens hood is a reference point for mounting the hood backwards for storage. Just line up the 2 white dots when putting it on backwards.

[Fargo73]

I think that the dot has a double purpose: both to be aligned with the focus ring and as a sign to insert the hood.
The L sign is just a kind of "arrow" to show where the infinity is, because the infinity sign could not be placed there directly for lack of space.

So said this, I think my whole ring is misaligned on the right, also looking at the minimum end of the scale (even if it is less evident here):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2347/2178147921_0905005f6b_b.jpg

Obviously I'm not gonna use the focus scale to focus my pictures (I only used it with Rollei 35 ;) ), but it's a bit annoying.

By the way, I made some brief tests to check if my Sigma has any front or back focus problem with my Canon 400D (aka XTi).
I used the 5 batteries to check it, focusing the central battery (not very scientific :rolleyes: ).
-all pictures made with poor light, so with maximum aperture.
-at 70 I did not see any particular problem
-at 17 there's a slight backfocus using the central focus point (the most precise), but it becomes frontfocus using the lower focus point.
-the result were never the same.
-I had similar results with the 18-55 kit lens...

This is 17 mm, f2.8, 1/8, and is not very good
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2236/2178214293_eb3672729a_o.jpg

But this one (apart from the wrong WB...) seems perfect to me, still 17 mm, f2.8, 1/8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2204/2179006714_39f0cbdf03_o.jpg

While at 70 mm it is always very good with f4.5 and 0.4s
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2026/2179005698_6918de4c61_o.jpg

At 19 mm, f2.8, 1/8 is quite a mixed up result. No back or front focus, but not very sharp:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2076/2178213565_592b3d7881_o.jpg

I will test it also with more light the next days, but should I really worry for a few millimeters of misfocusing? ???

[d0wne]

How loud is this lens when focusing say compared to the kit lens? Compared to the Tamron 17-50?

[willy b]

Right...What is front and back focusing, and how does it effect you/the lens??

[Medic85]

How loud is this lens when focusing say compared to the kit lens? Compared to the Tamron 17-50?


I've never used the Tammy but it can be heard as opposed to a USM lens. There is some slight wheezing of the AF motor.

[KimLeece]

Right...What is front and back focusing, and how does it effect you/the lens??
It's simply that the auto focus doesn't quite focus on the point you intend and either focuses a bit behind it - back focus, or in front - front focus. It becomes more and more important the shallower your depth of field.

[d0wne]

Would the noise be distracting in say a wedding? I know since I am the one behind the camera, I get front seats to the AF noise. Maybe it isn't so loud to other people far away?

[Pumped]

Would the noise be distracting in say a wedding? I know since I am the one behind the camera, I get front seats to the AF noise. Maybe it isn't so loud to other people far away?


Its not very loud at all,
Makes less then the kit lens id say, purely cause the kit lens is always hunting in darker situations :)

its not worry :)

[Raphael V]

My 17-70 has focussing problems with my new 40D. It performs well with my 350D and 400D. Anyone having similar issues?

[TariQ.E]

^
^
I have the 30D and it's very nice with me

[AsterixCL]

This is from Maipu Church in Santiago, Chile

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2076/2183120347_07a7a5d8c0_o.jpg

:)

[d0wne]

I don't know if it's just me, but my AF motor is pretty loud. Mine is louder than the kit lens when going from both extremes in focal length. I know it isn't HSM, but I was wondering if this is normal.

Also, the lens cap that came with it was a Sigma, but it was a center pinch one.

[msowsun]

The 18-55 kit lens is actually a pretty quiet lens. It is much quieter than the old 50 1.8 mk I , 28-70 mk II, and 35-105mm 4.5-5.6 lenses that I have owned in the past.

If you sit by yourself in a quiet room, the 17-70 may seem noisy, but in real life situations shooting with other people or outdoors, it is not noticable to my ears.

[pumbaa]

I've been browsing this thread for a while, and I must say I am very impressed with the IQ of this lens. I'm seriously considering it as a walk around lens, so convince me why I should purchase this lens as opposed to the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 - will I miss the 50-70mm focal length range with the 18-50 vs constant f/2.8 for example????

[willy b]

Well i guess it all depends what your using it for. If it mainly outdoor use (which it is with me) then i would rather have the extra 20mm than the f2.8, due to most of the time outside there is substantial amount of light.

The sigma is such a cool lens, many people don't shout about about the macro capabilities of it, i have got some belting macro shots, when i get home i shall post Many reasons (a collection of my best sigma shots) That will show you just haw versatilwe it really is lol.

[willy b]

Cars
1http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/047-2.jpg

Landscape
2http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/033-1.jpg

3http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/065.jpg

4http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/134.jpg

5http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/hdr36.jpg

6http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/102-1.jpg

[willy b]

Macro
7http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/113.jpg

8http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/045-2.jpg

9http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/cropinsect.jpg

10http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/IMG_9868.jpg

Animals
11http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/036-1.jpg

[willy b]

Now these are just a few that i can find, i have millions more that i took which i love lol. I just love the lens!

[d0wne]

I've been browsing this thread for a while, and I must say I am very impressed with the IQ of this lens. I'm seriously considering it as a walk around lens, so convince me why I should purchase this lens as opposed to the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 - will I miss the 50-70mm focal length range with the 18-50 vs constant f/2.8 for example????

Well you already have the 17-55 for the constant 2.8 so . . .

[pumbaa]

Well you already have the 17-55 for the constant 2.8 so . . .

That's the wifes though :mad:

I'm settling for a cheaper alternative.....

I guess the majority of use will be outdoors, but certainly will be doing a fair amount of indoor (maybe some weddings) photography. I just can't make my mind up.....

[Geoff_Shawcross]

One thing I love about this lens, is the macro capabilities. The fact that you can have a subject literally almost touching the front element and still focus on it is mind numbing.......The only thing that could possibly make this lens any better than it is, is if it had a constant f2.8 and a magnafication ratio of 1:1 instead of 1:2.

[willy b]

Geoff, if it had both of those, would there be any need for another lens lol

[d0wne]

One thing I love about this lens, is the macro capabilities. The fact that you can have a subject literally almost touching the front element and still focus on it is mind numbing.......The only thing that could possibly make this lens any better than it is, is if it had a constant f2.8 and a magnafication ratio of 1:1 instead of 1:2.

...and HSM with OS.

[Geoff_Shawcross]

LOL......I suppose that would be the case Willy B. But it would still be nice :D

[willy b]

Ow if it was white lol

[willy b]

1http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/009-2.jpg

2http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/010-4.jpg

3http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/019-2.jpg

4http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/020-1.jpg

5http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/022-4.jpg

6http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/025-3.jpg

7http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/026-2.jpg

8http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/027-1.jpg

[Rotti]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b123/Rotti123/CRW_8223.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b123/Rotti123/CRW_8111.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b123/Rotti123/Flower23.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b123/Rotti123/Sigma%2017-70mm%20%20Macro%20DC/CRW_1678.jpg

[Rotti]

Just thought I'd ad a few to this cool thread. 17-70mm is a fun lens.

[Rotti]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b123/Rotti123/IMG_4570.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b123/Rotti123/IMG_4569.jpg

[DDCSD]

Can anyone tell me the focal lengths that the aperture changes at? Can't seem to find this info anywhere. Trying to decide between this and the Tammy 17-50. Looks to be a fabulous lens.

[willy b]

nice pics rotti

[Ospi]

Nice pics all. im stoked atm, was convinced my 17-70 was back focusing but after trying it on my new 40D today it seems it is 100% fine, it was that bloody camera all a long.

Back to shooting happily with this great lens :)

[msowsun]

Can anyone tell me the focal lengths that the aperture changes at? Can't seem to find this info anywhere. Trying to decide between this and the Tammy 17-50. Looks to be a fabulous lens.

http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/sigma_1770_test_report

The Sigma 17-70 aperture varies with focal length:

17-20mm f/2.8
21-24mm f/3.2
24-34mm f/3.5
35-54mm f/4.0
55-70mm f/4.5

[DDCSD]

http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/sigma_1770_test_report

The Sigma 17-70 aperture varies with focal length:

17-20mm f/2.8
21-24mm f/3.2
24-34mm f/3.5
35-54mm f/4.0
55-70mm f/4.5


Exactly what I was looking for, thanks Mike!

[In2Photos]

A couple from my zoo trip this past weekend. Both shot indoors with my 40D.

70mm, ISO 800, f/4.5, 1/50

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/91633974/original.jpg

53mm, ISO800, f/4, 1/15:shock:
http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/91633950/original.jpg

[rohicks]

Well the past 1-2 weeks my home town has been through a flood that was called the 100th year flood because there was less than a 1% chance of this flood ever happening in our area.
So i went home and took some pictures after the water receded a little bit.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2239/2191393263_a972cb19da_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2077/2192181078_6173796f37_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2168/2192181524_df49a3b05f_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2087/2191394603_4cd33d556a_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2410/2191392283_d9a07e5cf4_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2342/2191392483_14af32e64e_o.jpg
There is a boat docking station under this water by the signs somewhere.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2222/2191392733_56a4538bc1_o.jpg

Home town = Monticello, Indiana for those that might of heard about it on the news.

[Rotti]

Thanks Wily.

[willy b]

Rather dramatic stuff there Ryan, like them!

[rohicks]

Thanks willy

[JiggyNS]

Has anyone been able to use this lens backwards as a macro lens by putting on one of those special rings?
I tried doing so by just holding the lens backwards and it seems as if the front end of the lens would have a too large diameter to fit beneath the on board flash housing.

[macobee]

Hi i just got mine today, and i have to admit i am not that skilled and it was a bad weather day, overcast and smoggy like hell again.
here are a few test shots from today, not that happy yet but i hope i will get better results the coming few days.

Marco
pls feel free to C&C as im learning

[macobee]

One more from today

[Mediation]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2373/2194041315_ebf15dbc1e_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2145/2194032847_698862d625.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2402/2194812874_de51ccc79b.jpg?v=0

[willy b]

1http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/045-3.jpg

2http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/041-2.jpg

3http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/036-7.jpg

4http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/030-2.jpg

5http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/033-2.jpg

6http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/040-4.jpg

7http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/037-6.jpg

[Fargo73]

There must be something wrong in this crazy world! :rolleyes:
How comes that willy b that lives in UK always has these wonderful sunny days to take pictures while in Italy I always get rainy days??? :evil:

Nice pictures Willi :D

[willy b]

Thanks Fargo, This was the first sunny day in about 2 months lol. And even then it was in the middle of a thunder storm, as soon as i saw the sun come out i bloody grabbed the camera and was off lol!

Today is rain, went out riding this morning and got soaked lol!

[Mazu]

I am so late with my contribution, got the 17-70 last summer :oops: Anyway here's a couple examples. No sharpening added, they are sharp enough :cool:

40mm, f/4,0, 1/250
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2394/2197132663_3c13f768ec_o.jpg



100% crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2068/2197921390_edde14ce3f_o.jpg



17mm, f/2,8, 1/2500
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2398/2197132507_928be3a25a_o.jpg

[willy b]

WOW, that cat shot is sooooo sharp, the 100% crop could be a shot on its' own lol

Good work

[Geoff_Shawcross]

This is why I love this lens so much. I've also got photos as sharp as that cat shot (exellent shot by the way). It was the perfect choice to replace me kit lens. And it doesn't break the piggy bank either.....lol. :)

[Mediation]

far out. I sometimes still cant believe how sharp this lens is and i own a sigma 17-70mm. It blows me away really. I dont know why people are so anti Sigma. They produce fantastic lenses.

[willy b]

Sigma are they lens of choice for me, yeh they don't do a white lens, but hey, i love them!

[Geoff_Shawcross]

Some of their lenses are definately on par (at least) with some of Canon's "white lenses" though.

[willy b]

Yeh agreed i think they are. the 70-200 f2.8 for example, about half the price lol

[pixel_junkie]

If I have to choose between this lens and the CANON 17-55 IS 2.8 which seems to be everyone's favorite and a benchmark for a general purpose walk around lens and if I base my decision just on samples I've seen from both (which after all is what it is all about), IMO the SIGMA is clearly the winner. Better range, macro, no IS but it is less then half the price of the CANON, hood is included vs. the $50 CANON hood and is as well or better build. Great looking pictures!

[willy b]

Glad you like them Pixel Junkie:)

[Mediation]

If I have to choose between this lens and the CANON 17-55 IS 2.8 which seems to be everyone's favorite and a benchmark for a general purpose walk around lens and if I base my decision just on samples I've seen from both (which after all is what it is all about), IMO the SIGMA is clearly the winner. Better range, macro, no IS but it is less then half the price of the CANON, hood is included vs. the $50 CANON hood and is as well or better build. Great looking pictures!

:cool:you make me proud of my sexy Sigma lens

[Minja]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2353/2195379107_b1dde4bbe0_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minja_saturday/

[Medic85]

That's different...but I like it!

[willy b]

Yeh i like it too, good shot:)

[e r y k]

im going to be reunited with my 17-70 today!

[willy b]

eryk, long time no post, make sure you get some of the cars!

[e r y k]

lol heres a random pic i took when i got it back just to test the focusing

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/erykv1/finals/17365.jpg

[willy b]

I think yours has to be the sharpest 17-70 i have seen!!

[davo_robbo]

looks sharp.. really sharp..
it seems as though i got a soft copy.. its not very sharp at all and lacks quite a bit of detail.. when i get a good shot it comes out nice though... here's my contribution :)

1
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2101/2198860405_2a2dd535f5_b.jpg
2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2004/2188624250_acca398c1b_b.jpg
3
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2088/2187577320_8b256c593e_b.jpg
4
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2166/2186790891_127457bf24_b.jpg
5
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2053/2186723237_30c751a1cf_b.jpg
6
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2365/2187267400_f08fb3d134_b.jpg

[willy b]

Love 2 Davo! Very nice shotsm infact all are good:) Doesn't look soft to me

[willy b]

Don't think i ever put these in hear:

1http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/IMG_0292.jpg

2http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/crop-2.jpg

3http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/IMG_0303.jpg

4http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/IMG_0308.jpg

[Mediation]

haha that last shot is so 'cute' :p

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2252/2201656372_0bd55a43e1_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2248/2200856697_cf2393c9c5_b.jpg

[davo_robbo]

Love 2 Davo! Very nice shotsm infact all are good:) Doesn't look soft to me

i think nearly all of them have usm applied.. just seems softer than all the others on here :)

[stiscooby]

I have a 350d with the kit lens and a canon 70-300mm IS lens. Thinking of getting a new lens for when I go on my hols.

Would it be worth getting the sigma 17-70 or not really worth it? I dont want to spend hundreds so this lens kinda fits the budget ;)

[willy b]

Well i suspect this thread will give you a good idea;)

I upgraded to the Sigma from the kit lens, and imediatly noticed the difference, havn't looked back since, one of my better decisions!

Mediation: Cute, lol if you say so lol! Loving the last shot of yours you just posted!

[corosario]

Both pictures: Canon 40D, f/4, 1/800, 17mm, ISO 100

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2308/2205308186_f9ce4a65db_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2065/2205306864_687eb5cf57_b.jpg

[Medic85]

^^ Interesting set. Was that like some kind of agility race or something?

[TooManyShots]

Cyclcross race. Road race and off road race combined with jumping obstacles. Training during the off season, Winter with snow. :)


^^ Interesting set. Was that like some kind of agility race or something?

[willy b]

Basically. It is very fookin hard lol!

Done it once...never agin i'll gave my trail bikes please:)

[KenG]

http://kengillespie.com/img/v3/p90605391-4.jpg
Sold it since but it was a great lens for the price, incredibly versatile...

[willy b]

Nice shot Ken!

1http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/124-1.jpg

2http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/110-2.jpg

3http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/098-4.jpg

4http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/073-3.jpg

5http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/064-2.jpg

6http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/054-3.jpg

7http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/024-3.jpg

8http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/034-5.jpg

[corosario]

^^ Interesting set. Was that like some kind of agility race or something?

Exactly what TooManyShots said. Although we don't get snow on our races in Houston, TX :D! It is tough, but a lot of fun to watch and photograph.

[In2Photos]

From my first strobist meetup yesterday in a parking garage.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=237216&d=1200806892

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=237206&d=1200806083

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=237205&d=1200805312

[Medic85]

Nice work, Mike. I wish I could have come along too.

[macobee]

Hi, today went out with the sigma 17-70 again, and despite its still smoggy, at least it was sunny today. I think however that my lens is off, seeing all your pictures here and they are so sharp, bright and colorful. would appreciate you guys have a look at following pictures, i dont know how to lift the data on them to include here, i am sorry.

Marco

[macobee]

one more

[macobee]

last one...strangely they seem to look better when posted on here then on my screen, i use aperture on a mac.

[Fargo73]

Hi, today went out with the sigma 17-70 again, and despite its still smoggy, at least it was sunny today. I think however that my lens is off, seeing all your pictures here and they are so sharp, bright and colorful. would appreciate you guys have a look at following pictures, i dont know how to lift the data on them to include here, i am sorry.

Marco

I think it might also depend on your camera settings.
If you already don't do so, try shooting in RAW format, and then you will have many options in modifying color balance, exposure bias and sharpness.
All of this does not replace usual attention on photographic techniques (correct time/frame, focusing and image composition) but it will help you get the best out of your photos.

Consider that most presets in my 400D (XTi) have sharpness set quite low, and raising it to the maximum will make pictures so crisp and clear!

It's more or less like working with negatives (RAW) or prints from a laboratory (Jpeg) if compared to traditional photography.

[In2Photos]

Nice work, Mike. I wish I could have come along too.
Thanks Chris. It was fun. I am sure you can make it to another one eventually.

[gef]

I upgraded from the kit lens and it matches up with my 70-300 IS rather nicely too!

I have a 350d with the kit lens and a canon 70-300mm IS lens. Thinking of getting a new lens for when I go on my hols.

Would it be worth getting the sigma 17-70 or not really worth it? I dont want to spend hundreds so this lens kinda fits the budget ;)

[willy b]

Dam mike, there sharp!!

[Geoff_Shawcross]

I did the samething as you Greg.....I upgraded from the kit lens to the Sigma and have never regretted it. I also have the 70-300 IS, and it does match up nicely.

[In2Photos]

Dam mike, there sharp!!
Were you refering to my shots? If so, thanks! My copy grew a backfocus problem shortly after buying it used from a POTN member. Sigma fixed it for free and it seems to be great. I really love the lens (although seeing a Tokina 16-50 in action this past weekend may have me upgrading ;)).

[Minja]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b398/Licanin2/2141685103_7aeffdf585_b.jpg

[Mediation]

Nice work Mike!!

Minja - Very abstract, moody. I like :)

[In2Photos]

Nice work Mike!!



Thanks!

[Fargo73]

Here's my contribution.
Let me know your opinions, but I know I still have to learn ;)

Taken in a sunny winter afternoon:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2420/2212288748_f565ba58d9_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2065/2211497007_f30a227667_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/2212287880_0072dabca0_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2041/2211497275_46dff05a82_o.jpg

[Fargo73]

A couple of B/W:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/2211496703_c7a8278dbb_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2417/2211496823_17dc714af2_o.jpg

And some in the fog of a chilling morning:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2103/2211497611_81ff3b0a6e_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2042/2212289422_414c2f2064_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2315/2212289090_d01e1a41f5_o.jpg

[Fargo73]

A couple of modern shots:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2412/2212288410_3b0d4176f0_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2211496207_35237078a2_o.jpg

[willy b]

Like the First shot Fargo, and the last one too!! Couple i have

1http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/001-3.jpg

2http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/003-3.jpg

3http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/018-4.jpg

4http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/hdr5bw-1.jpg

5http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/hdr3-9.jpg

6http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/125.jpg

[Fargo73]

And finally some macro shots. This is completely new to me, but I like macro capacity of the Sigma 17-70!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2398/2211496365_3f192774e7_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2303/2212287818_b3a56cfd2a_o.jpg

100% crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2380/2211498363_395883a528_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2040/2212287662_952d7ea241_o.jpg

100% crop (for some reason Flickr rotates it)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2173/2211498233_d19c459dae_o.jpg

[Fargo73]

Like the First shot Fargo, and the last one too!! Couple i have

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o288/willyb_photo/hdr5bw-1.jpg



Thanks :D
I like this one ^

[willy b]

Thanks:) Pleased you like! The macro capabilities are brilliant on this lens i think! Very versatile lens indeed!!

[KimLeece]

The macro is great......

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/2219977245_b1c6d3476b.jpg

[Mediation]

So is that shot :)

[KimLeece]

So is that shot :)
Thanks! :)

I just posted this somewhere else, but as I made it with my Sigma 17-70 I'll add it here too. This is my first attempt at macro focus stacking. It's a combined image of 7 shots allowing the increased DOF on the finished image.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2172/2221504301_c5cb97b734.jpg

[Mediation]

wow! wonderful work Kim. Keep posting please :) looks like you got a tack sharp copy!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/2222275968_f8d17b26d1.jpg

The gradual decay of childhood

[KimLeece]

wow! wonderful work Kim. Keep posting please :) looks like you got a tack sharp copy!

It's not bad now. I sent it in to Sigma when I first bought it though - it was back-focusing. They seem to have fixed it quite well! :)

[willy b]

Nice, sharp shots Kim!